first off...yes i know this has been asked already and i did check out the other posts on this...also im sorry if i sound like a total arse, i dont mean to

so in the other posts its obvious that some say its just 3d6 without ditching the highest die and others are saying you test it on a 4d6...now i understand the first part but the rolling a 4d6 doesnt seem right since neither effect says to add an extra die to the test...while just rolling 3d6 without ditching the highest die seems as your only using the effect of shadow and not the rune

however i know there is no LIFO rule but it seems like it would apply...example: your in range of a critter with shadow, you declare your using a psyker power, then shadow takes effect and you have to roll 3d6, and after you make your rolls then runes would take effect

so i would think thats one way to deal with it...and yes i know both would take effect at the same time...or would the effects of the powers be the other way around

but when i read the eldar faq i know the question only applys to the shadow power from a tyrant however the answer seems as though it covers the shadow power from all nid critters

just so you all know...im easily confuzzled with chronic brain farts from hell but im just blown away with this topic and any help or insight with this would be greatly appreciated

You can look at the FAQ for Witnessing vs. Warding as a precedent for Shadows.

Runes of warding says that you roll psychic tests on three dice, and use the sum, any results above 12 are a perils of the warp.

Runes of witnessing says that you drop the highest.

Therefore, you still roll all three, check to see if you get over 12 (for the perils) but then drop the highest.

For Shadow in the Warp it is similar, but you just get perils on different results (any double-1 or 6?).

willydstyle is right. That is the way it was ruled for witnessing vs warding. A strange ruling and they may follow the same for shadow vs witnessing. they may well not. To me the most sensible solution is to roll 4d6 discard the highest and then follow the rules for shadow with the remaining 3. Hence you have directly applied both effects.

However the precedent would be to only roll 3 dice check to see if there are any double 6s or 1s and then discard the highest. This makes the runes VERY powerful.

How you play it? Well simply check with your opponent before hand if you are playing Eldar or check with a TO before hand if using 'Nids (there will be ALOT of rules you'll have to check with him if using 'Nids).

They are playing it as the Shadow totally overrides the Runes at the local GW store. Apparently there are already examples similar to this in other books, (maybe WHFB I don't know.) Also according to the fluff Eldar in particular are screwed by the shadow of the warp so it makes sense that way. I myself say they just cancel out and roll the Standard 2d6.

FlingitNow wrote:willydstyle is right. That is the way it was ruled for witnessing vs warding. A strange ruling and they may follow the same for shadow vs witnessing. they may well not. To me the most sensible solution is to roll 4d6 discard the highest and then follow the rules for shadow with the remaining 3. Hence you have directly applied both effects.

However the precedent would be to only roll 3 dice check to see if there are any double 6s or 1s and then discard the highest. This makes the runes VERY powerful.

How you play it? Well simply check with your opponent before hand if you are playing Eldar or check with a TO before hand if using 'Nids (there will be ALOT of rules you'll have to check with him if using 'Nids).

Why is rolling 4d6 the most sensible, both rules tell you to roll 3d6, they do not say to add dice.

Why shouldn't runes of witnessing be powerful, they are an upgrade that costs points.

as I've mention in other threads i like to do it this way ...

3d6 under LD ... fail or a double 1 or 6 causes peril

3d6 (drop the highest) under LD ... to see if the power is cast.

Technically, if you consider GW FAQs as ZOMGBBQ canon, you have to follow the procedure detailed in the nid FAQ, even though it's for the old codex

Tri wrote:as I've mention in other threads i like to do it this way ...

3d6 under LD ... fail or a double 1 or 6 causes peril

3d6 (drop the highest) under LD ... to see if the power is cast.

That seems like the best to me, and matches the witnessing vs. warding interaction.

Why is rolling 4d6 the most sensible, both rules tell you to roll 3d6, they do not say to add dice.

Why shouldn't runes of witnessing be powerful, they are an upgrade that costs points.

They are an upgrade that costs points, 4d6 makes the most sense because it fulfills boths rules nearest to their requirements. You normally take the test on 2d6 Witnessing allows you to roll and extra dice and then discard the highest.

Shadow makes to you roll and extra dice and add the results together. If you discar a 3rd d6 you are not following the porcedure for Shadow.

Whilst neither specifically says add a d6 both tell you to roll one more than usual. We have to look at this from a RaI perspective as there is no RaW to handle it.

Precedent was set with Witnessing vs Warding but as others have said the Shadow is supposed to greatly effect Eldar and following the procedure above would fit in with this fluff too.

Either way you're going to have to agree with your opponent how to play it. If you were playing me and you were adamant that Witnessing vs Warding precedent to stand then I'd be fine with it as long as that was agreed before the game.

FlingitNow wrote:

Why is rolling 4d6 the most sensible, both rules tell you to roll 3d6, they do not say to add dice.

Why shouldn't runes of witnessing be powerful, they are an upgrade that costs points.

They are an upgrade that costs points, 4d6 makes the most sense because it fulfills boths rules nearest to their requirements. You normally take the test on 2d6 Witnessing allows you to roll and extra dice and then discard the highest.

Shadow makes to you roll and extra dice and add the results together. If you discar a 3rd d6 you are not following the porcedure for Shadow.

Whilst neither specifically says add a d6 both tell you to roll one more than usual. We have to look at this from a RaI perspective as there is no RaW to handle it.

Precedent was set with Witnessing vs Warding but as others have said the Shadow is supposed to greatly effect Eldar and following the procedure above would fit in with this fluff too.

Either way you're going to have to agree with your opponent how to play it. If you were playing me and you were adamant that Witnessing vs Warding precedent to stand then I'd be fine with it as long as that was agreed before the game.

both ask you to roll 3D6 ... by rolling 3D6 you do what both rule say ... as with the witnessig vs warding you take the postive effect from witness and the negative from shadow.

both ask you to roll 3D6 ... by rolling 3D6 you do what both rule say ... as with the witnessig vs warding you take the postive effect from witness and the negative from shadow.

But your are not taking the negative effect from the shadow! The shadow is supposed to shut down their pyschic powers that is the negative effect and that is being completely ignored by the warding vs witnessing effect. By my method you are taking the positive effect of the runes and the negative effect of the shadow.

Tri - no, your method means you dont test on 3D6, as required by SitW, so you have broken the rules for SitW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tri - no, your method means you dont test on 3D6, as required by SitW, so you have broken the rules for SitW.

why? you check for peril on 3d6 checking for double 1's and 6's and you see if its cast on 3d6 droping the highest... no just not seeing it neather rule asks you to roll an extra D6 both ask you to roll 3d6.

no just not seeing it neather rule asks you to roll an extra D6 both ask you to roll 3d6.

But shadow requires you to take the test on 3d6 not roll 3d6! You are not taking the test on 3d6, you are taking it on 2d6!! It never specifies how may dice are rolled on that the test is taken on 3d6. Rolling 4d6 and discording the highest is still taking the test on 3d6.

Only witnessing defines how many dice you roll.

From earlier ...

Tri wrote:as I've mention in other threads i like to do it this way ...

3d6 under LD ... fail or a double 1 or 6 causes peril

test taken on 3d6 ... to see if theres peril

3d6 (drop the highest) under LD ... to see if the power is cast.

test take on 3d6 droping the highest to see if it works

This is the exact same as runes of witnessing vs runes of warding ...

Tri - no, the TEST is "have you passed the psychic Test?" - and the TEST is rolling dice, adding them up and comparing them to leadership.

By dropping one dice and seeing if you have passed the test on 2D6, you have NOT coimplied with SitWs requirement to take the test on 3 dice.

well you can follow the Eldar FAQ ... and ether

A) use the runes of witnessing vs runes of warding rules, with a modification for the doubles, as i have.
or
B) use shadow vs witessing and nether does anything, roll the nomal 2d6 vs LD

well you can follow the Eldar FAQ ... and ether

A) use the runes of witnessing vs runes of warding rules, with a modification for the doubles, as i have.
or
B) use shadow vs witessing and nether does anything, roll the nomal 2d6 vs LD

Whilst these are both options I don't see your reason for being against eth simplest, easiest solution of rolling 4d6? This directly applies the effect of both rules. You can't directly apply both rules so why not just apply their effect?

I can see the rason for using your option 1 as it follows precedent set by Runes of warding. However runes of warding dramatically increases your chance of getting perils whilst also shutting down you psychic powers and is an eldar rune so it makes sense that witnessing would help greatly against this. Shadow just shuts down psychic powers with a marginal increase in the chances of perils thus you are effectively totally ignoring Shadow by apply this method, something that is supposed to greatly effect the Eldar.

Well, the reason to not use the simplest, easiest solution of rolling 4d6 is that rolling 4d6 is farthest from rules.

Both the runes and the shadow specifically tell us to roll 3d6, so by rolling 4d6 one would be breaking both rules. By rolling 3d6 one is at least following both rules, however one then treats the 3d6. By rolling 4d6 the odds for rolling a double of some sort go up dramatically, so even the basis of the RAI for how often perils hits is being badly violated.

Thats probably why people dont do 4d6, it isnt even vaguely RAW, and changes the basic odds for the perils so its not even vaguely RAI. Might be a house rule that some people could live with since it does have the benefit of being easy...but its a brand new rule.


The usual practice on rules conflicts is to try and break the fewest rules as possible, and to work through to determine how that process ends up. Its usually NOT fast or easy, but this isnt checkers we are playing.



Sliggoth

Both the runes and the shadow specifically tell us to roll 3d6, so by rolling 4d6 one would be breaking both rules. By rolling 3d6 one is at least following both rules, however one then treats the 3d6. By rolling 4d6 the odds for rolling a double of some sort go up dramatically, so even the basis of the RAI for how often perils hits is being badly violated.

Thats probably why people dont do 4d6, it isnt even vaguely RAW, and changes the basic odds for the perils so its not even vaguely RAI. Might be a house rule that some people could live with since it does have the benefit of being easy...but its a brand new rule.

Nice but wrong the Shadow does not tell us how many dice to roll only the runes do. Pllease read the other posts before making pointless comments that have already been gone over.

Shadow requires you to take the test on 3d6 using the other methods totally break this.

Why would you check for doubles on all 4 dice? Please read the suggested method before again coming up with a pointless non-point that has ntohing to do with the discussion.

No method is even vaguely RaW, my method is clearly nearer all I've done is modify the runes of witnessing (the more out of date rule) to add a d6 and haven't broken RaW on the newer Shadow rule at all. I don't see why being so close to RaW is a benefit or a desire? Making the rule make sense and get as close to RaI is all that matters.

The usual practice on rules conflicts is to try and break the fewest rules as possible, and to work through to determine how that process ends up. Its usually NOT fast or easy, but this isnt checkers we are playing.

Well my method only bends one rule and is completely compliant with the newest rule...

4D6 makes the most sense, combining both rules without damaging each others.

Runes say roll 3D6, discard highest. This works for a test which would normally be 2D6.

Shadow says roll 3D6, and perils as normal. This alters the basic form of the test to 3D6.

So when in range of shadow and runes are being used. Runes would allocate another dice, since this is the principle of the rule. Making the test on 4D6. This still helps eldar player.

Example, say i roll 1,6,6,5. You discard a 6 so no perils are taken. However due to shadow and the test requiring 3D6. The power does not go off, since 12 was rolled.

Example 4, 3, 2, 6 No perils are taken and due to runes, test is passed on 9

Shadow of the warp is meant to decimate pysker powers, by only taking the test on 3D6 and discarding the highest, you completely miss the point off Shadow.

mrwrittwer

I concur.

It also effects game balance. In the witnessing vs warding debate game balance could not be effected as always both armies could take both runes as they are both eldar. However this ruling on Tyranids really hampers how effectively they shut down enemy psker (remember it only has a 12" range) whilst they themselves are shut down with impunity by warding.

But until we get a ruling this will have to be something each player decides before a battle. Or in the case of a tournament it is just another the you will have to ask the TO how they rule on before entering along with basically every other special rule in the codex...

And runes of witnessing are meant to protect the psyker, so if you roll on 4d6 you completely miss the point of runes of witnessing.

Guys, it's very simple.

On a 4+, it works.

FlingitNow wrote:Whilst these are both options I don't see your reason for being against eth simplest, easiest solution of rolling 4d6? This directly applies the effect of both rules. You can't directly apply both rules so why not just apply their effect?

Both ask you to roll 3d6 ... but lets say we did roll 4d6 drop the highest ...

===========corrected for brain failure==============

2D6 vs LD10 = 91.6% chance of casting 5.5% chance of perril
3D6 vs LD10 = 50% chance of casting and 14.8% chance of perril (shadow)
3D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 98.1% chance of casting and 7.8 chance of perril (runes of witness)

4D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 72.9% chance of casting and 16.7% chance of perril
3D6 (hybrid as above) vs Ld10 = 98.1% and 14.8% chance of perril
3d6 rerolling highest = 70.1% chance of passing and 15.8% chance of perril

===========corrected for brain failure==============

...4D6 DH has a greater chance to shut down the power and 3D6 has a great chance to wound the farseer ... Also if the farseer is with a warlock with embolden he can reroll the test bring 4D6 DH odds to 92.6559%

I can see the rason for using your option 1 as it follows precedent set by Runes of warding. However runes of warding dramatically increases your chance of getting perils whilst also shutting down you psychic powers and is an eldar rune so it makes sense that witnessing would help greatly against this. Shadow just shuts down psychic powers with a marginal increase in the chances of perils thus you are effectively totally ignoring Shadow by apply this method, something that is supposed to greatly effect the Eldar.

I can't agree with you on this. If you roll 3D6 you've met both rules ...

Tri wrote:
4D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 72.9% chance of casting and 39.6% chance of perril
3D6 (hybrid as above) vs Ld10 = 98.1% and 57.4% chance of perril

...4D6 DH has a greater chance to shut down the power and 3D6 has a great chance to wound the farseer ... Also if the farseer is with a warlock with embolden he can reroll the test bring 4D6 DH odds to 92.6559%

I dont see what is so horrible about this. Eldar still have an advantage using runes as opposed to say Chaos Space Marines who will get the full brunt of the Shadow. The very purpose of shadow is to decimate psykers. Seems more than fair to me using 4D6, for both Eldar and Tyranids. 72% chance isnt bad odds, as opposed to the 50% from just shadow..

Put me down in the group for 4d6 drop the highest, any other option is ignoring the primary defensive component of the Shadows of the Warp to much.

For what its worth I play neither Tyranids nor Eldar armies.

Jack

Roll 3d6 take out the highest (for runes) then roll another d6 and add it to the remaining 2 from the first roll, then calculate PotW and success.

3d6 were rolled with the highest removed, and the test was still taken on 3d6.

Or just roll 4d6 and call it a short cut.

Tri - as explained you have NOT met the SitW rules: the rules require you TAKE THE TEST on 3D6.

Taking the test is defined as adding up dice and comparing to leadership.

If you are not addign up 3D6 you have not complied with SitW.

It really isnt any simpler than that.

kirsanth wrote:Roll 3d6 take out the highest (for runes) then roll another d6 and add it to the remaining 2 from the first roll, then calculate PotW and success.

3d6 were rolled with the highest removed, and the test was still taken on 3d6.

Or just roll 4d6 and call it a short cut.

So essentially, SitW combined with RoW forces you to test on 3d6, but allows you to reroll the highest die.

Sounds good to me.

Both ask you to roll 3d6 ...

Why are people STILL trying to pull this one?!?!?! This is a total lie Tri and you know it as it has been pointed out several times before.

2D6 vs LD10 = 91.6% chance of casting 11.1% chance of perril
3D6 vs LD10 = 50% chance of casting and 57.4% chance of perril (shadow)
3D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 98.1% chance of casting and 8.8% chance of perril (runes of witness)

4D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 72.9% chance of casting and 39.6% chance of perril
3D6 (hybrid as above) vs Ld10 = 98.1% and 57.4% chance of perril

I'll take you word for it on the maths (for the chance to pass the test) and as you see it makes total sense as your method makes the Shadow totally redundant (98% chance of success either way). I'm not convinced rolling 3d6 has a 57.4% chance of double 1 or double 6 as it only as a 44% chance of ANY double. So to me that means a 15% chance of Perils. I can't see the chance changing at all by rolling 4d6 and discarding the highest either as you still ahve 3d6 left any 2 of which could be doubled...

So in essence you are saying that Shadow should have NO effect on the chance of a farseer casting a spell and a measly 4% increase in him getting a perils attack?!?!

FlingitNow wrote:Why are people STILL trying to pull this one?!?!?! This is a total lie Tri and you know it as it has been pointed out several times before.

No, it is not a lie. Please explain how two rules asking you to roll 3D6 are not asking you to roll 3D6.

No, it is not a lie. Please explain how two rules asking you to roll 3D6 are not asking you to roll 3D6.

One rule tells you to roll 3d6 the other rule does not mention how many dice to roll. It only states the test is taken on 3d6. If you roll for instance 4d6 and discard one of them the test has still been taken on 3d6.

Please read the thread Gwar this has been explained several times.

FlingitNow wrote:

No, it is not a lie. Please explain how two rules asking you to roll 3D6 are not asking you to roll 3D6.

One rule tells you to roll 3d6 the other rule does not mention how many dice to roll. It only states the test is taken on 3d6. If you roll for instance 4d6 and discard one of them the test has still been taken on 3d6.

Please read the thread Gwar this has been explained several times.

No, Rolling 4D6 and discarding one is taking the test on 4D6 and then discarding one.

No, Rolling 4D6 and discarding one is taking the test on 4D6 and then discarding one.

It is still taking the test on 3d6, heck rolling 10d6 and discarding 7 is still taking the test on 3d6 as long as the test (comparing the total to your Ld) is made with 3d6 how many you roll before hand and discard/ignore etc is irrelevant.

Ah, so then do you mind if I take all my Leadership tests on 8,968,962D6 and discard 8,968,960 of them then?

I'm still taking the test on 2D6 after all.

Ah, so then do you mind if I take all my Leadership tests on 8,968,962D6 and discard 8,968,960 of them then?

I'm still taking the test on 2D6 after all.

If you have a special rule allowing you to do so then yes. Remember it is a permissive rule set. Whilst the Shadows doesn't stop you from rolling more dice (if something else allows you to) it doesn't tell you to roll more so you can't unless some other rule is tell you so and in conjunction with Shadows this would not break shadows.

Not saying by RaW that Witnessing allows you to roll a 4th d6, just pointing out that Shadows doesn't prohibit it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I'll summerise the options for everyone:

1) Just have them cancel each other out and take the test on 2d6. Nice neet but breaks both the rules and effects of each rule.

2) Roll 3d6 check for doubles then discard the highest. This is entirely compliant with the older codex rule but breaks both the rules and effects of the new Shadow rule.

3) Roll 4d6 discard the highest take the remaining dice and check for perils and test passing. This is entirely compliant with the new rule for Shadow, it does however break the rules for the Runes but retains the effect.

3 seems like the obviouis choice as it is closest tied to the rules and doesn't break one army against another is balanced. 2 seems the 2nd most sensible it only breaks one set of rules and follows percedent, however it effects game balance by stuffing the 'Nids against Eldar with no reverse balance. Option 1 is balanced but has no founding in either special rule, to be honest I'd rather play it this way than option 2 as it does not disrupt game balance.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Roll 3d6 take out the highest (for runes) then roll another d6 and add it to the remaining 2 from the first roll, then calculate PotW and success.

3d6 were rolled with the highest removed, and the test was still taken on 3d6.

Or just roll 4d6 and call it a short cut.

So essentially, SitW combined with RoW forces you to test on 3d6, but allows you to reroll the highest die.

Sounds good to me.

3d6 rerolling highest = 70.1% chance of passing & 46.5% (estimated -+5%) chance of perril

FlingitNow wrote:

Ah, so then do you mind if I take all my Leadership tests on 8,968,962D6 and discard 8,968,960 of them then?

I'm still taking the test on 2D6 after all.

If you have a special rule allowing you to do so then yes. Remember it is a permissive rule set. Whilst the Shadows doesn't stop you from rolling more dice (if something else allows you to) it doesn't tell you to roll more so you can't unless some other rule is tell you so and in conjunction with Shadows this would not break shadows.

Not saying by RaW that Witnessing allows you to roll a 4th d6, just pointing out that Shadows doesn't prohibit it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I'll summerise the options for everyone:

1) Just have them cancel each other out and take the test on 2d6. Nice neet but breaks both the rules and effects of each rule.

2) Roll 3d6 check for doubles then discard the highest. This is entirely compliant with the older codex rule but breaks both the rules and effects of the new Shadow rule.

3) Roll 4d6 discard the highest take the remaining dice and check for perils and test passing. This is entirely compliant with the new rule for Shadow, it does however break the rules for the Runes but retains the effect.

3 seems like the obviouis choice as it is closest tied to the rules and doesn't break one army against another is balanced. 2 seems the 2nd most sensible it only breaks one set of rules and follows percedent, however it effects game balance by stuffing the 'Nids against Eldar with no reverse balance. Option 1 is balanced but has no founding in either special rule, to be honest I'd rather play it this way than option 2 as it does not disrupt game balance.

er ... my way the farseer is far more likely to be wounded which you keep ignoring by simply adding a warlock to the mix the eldar play all but cancels out the effects of 4d6 loose the highest ...

Also "just pointing out that Shadows doesn't prohibit it" that just plain doesn't work you must be alowed to do some thing ... or there would have to be a rule for, no throwing of rule books, don't scream out the he cheat just because you lost, or simply don't cheat.

er ... my way the farseer is far more likely to be wounded which you keep ignoring by simply adding a warlock to the mix the eldar play all but cancels out the effects of 4d6 loose the highest ...

Also "just pointing out that Shadows doesn't prohibit it" that just plain doesn't work you must be alowed to do some thing ... or there would have to be a rule for, no throwing of rule books, don't scream out the he cheat just because you lost, or simply don't cheat.

But your "maths" on the chances of perils is wildly inaccurate. Given that on 3 dice the chance of getting ANY double is 44%, your assertation that you have a over a 50% chance of getting a double 1 or 6 is frankly ludicrous.

Please read what I've posted I know shadow doesn't say you can take the test on 4d6. But it doesn't prohibit it meaning if another rule said you take the test on say 1 extra dice and discard the highest then shadow would not stop you from rolling 4 dice discarding the highest as the test would still have been taken on 3d6. In this instance rolling 4 dice would be correct and fully covered under RaW and wouldn't break Shadows rules at all.

All I'm saying is that rolling the test on 4d6 and discarding the highest does not break Shadow, it breaks Witnessing but not Shadow. Just like rolling 3d6 and discarding the highest breaks Shadow but not witnessing. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

However under RaW there is, as yet no, conswer to what happens when Witnessing meets Shadow. So you have to take one of those options (or come up with another). All of those options break the rules for at least 1 of the special rules. Only 1 option doesn't also break the effect of either rule and that is the 4d6 one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tri - as explained you have NOT met the SitW rules: the rules require you TAKE THE TEST on 3D6.

Taking the test is defined as adding up dice and comparing to leadership.

If you are not addign up 3D6 you have not complied with SitW.

It really isnt any simpler than that.

But if you don't drop the highest dice, then you aren't complying withe Runes of Witnessing rule.

If you can't follow the "break no rule" guideline, then what do we have to fall back on?

IMO taking the precedent set by Witnessing vs. Warding is not 100% RAW, but it's at least got some backing in the rules. Almost none of the other options do.

But if you don't drop the highest dice, then you aren't complying withe Runes of Witnessing rule.

If you can't follow the "break no rule" guideline, then what do we have to fall back on?

IMO taking the precedent set by Witnessing vs. Warding is not 100% RAW, but it's at least got some backing in the rules. Almost none of the other options do.

Exactly what ever you do will break the RaW of one of the rules. You can follow precedent but this damages game balance because the precedent was for an example of an army against itself rather than against a different army. It also totally breaks the effect of the newer rule. The 4d6 approach breaks the RaW of older rule but retains it's effect (rolling an extra dice and discarding the highest) and hence is the closest to how the rules work.

Neither is RaW as there simply isn't RaW covering this situation. So do you follow precedent totally breaking the newer rule and damaging balance? Or do you try to keep both rules as intact as possible bending one rule whilst keeping the other entirely intact?

Not all doubles just double 1's and double 6's on 3D6 (including 111 and 666) that gives you ...

32 out of 216 combinations or 14.8%

when Vs LD you might as well ignore double 6 since the test will peril through failed LD (i've no idea why they included double 6)

3d6 vs LD 10 will fail 50% of the time so add to that the peril from double 1's 57.4% as i orginally said

.................... and you don't get peril for just failling you get it on failling on a double ... my mistake hang on i'll repost them ...

32 out of 216 combinations or 14.8%

This is your chance of getting perils. Pass or fail is irrelevant any double 1 or 6 is a perils. Just failing is not.

On a normal roll your chance of a double 1 or 6 is 5.5%.

===========corrected for brain failure==============

2D6 vs LD10 = 91.6% chance of casting 5.5% chance of perril
3D6 vs LD10 = 50% chance of casting and 14.8% chance of perril (shadow)
3D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 98.1% chance of casting and 7.8 chance of perril (runes of witness)

4D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 72.9% chance of casting and 16.7% chance of perril
3D6 (hybrid as above) vs Ld10 = 98.1% and 14.8% chance of perril
3d6 rerolling highest = 70.1% chance of passing and 15.8% chance of perril

===========corrected for brain failure==============

you must have been confusing the rules for Runes of Warding with shadow, Warding forces you to take a perils test on a 12+.

This is actually a strong argument for why the precedent set by Warding v. Witnessing isn't fair to the nids. As Shadow has both a shorter range, and doesn't have the 12+ perils, witnessing effectively would neuter it completely. Whereas in the warding example there is still a much higher risk of taking perils... although between the ghost helm and perils no longer being s6, this really takes the bite out of warding as well.

I would like to say that the Eldar FAQ does say that witnessing v. shadow just cancel each other out.

I am aware that shadows rules have changed, but I think this is the best solution to the problem. Its based on a statement made by Games Workshop themselves, and it doesn't screw either party, and it makes sense. If you add an acid (offense) to a base (defense) you get salt and water (not favoring either the offense or the defense). I mean the eldar paid to make their powers go off more, and the nids paid to help shut down powers, they cancel each other out.

my 2c.

Cool that makes better sense except I don't think rolling 4d6 and discarding the highest would increase the chances of getting a double. Remember you check for a double after you've discarded so that should actually slightly reduce the chances of a double?!?! (not sure brain burp on the maths at this point without seeing a matrix or thinking it through far more than I'm prepared to).

Though I do find it funny that runes of witnessing actually increase your chances of getting aperil in the warp. Is that really correct?

yea, it increases your odds of getting perils for the simple reason that if you roll 3 die and discard the highest you have a slightly higher chance of rolling double 1. Its really quite negligible, and farseers have a 3+ ghosthelm to prevent perils as well as their invulnerable, which if they are fortuned they effectively don't need to re roll (fortune re rolls fails, perils re rolls success, can only reroll once, straight up 4+) so as a race, Eldar really doesn't mind perils, especially since even if it gets through it doesn't insta death the farseer anymore

yea, it increases your odds of getting perils for the simple reason that if you roll 3 die and discard the highest you have a slightly higher chance of rolling double 1.

But a lower chance of rolling a double 6... Surely that must balance out?

Yeah Eldar don't have to worry too much about perils. I don;t really like the 2d6 answer as it just ignores both rules but as you say it is simple and balanced.

No, because you still have the chance of rolling triple 1, which when you drop the highest still makes you peril...

look i'll come out on say it as an Long time eldar player its a stupidly low chance of suffering from peril and at some point its got mixed up that if you fail your psychic test you suffer peril ... and to compond that mistake the only thing that makes failure more like for me is another eldar player with runes of warding

ignoring nids for a second odds on a farseer with a warlcok with embolden suffering perils of the warp is 0.6% (yes the point is in the right place) odds on him also failing his ghost helm save 0.2% and chance of him failing his inv (even with the reroll) 0.15% ... so for give me for my earlier mistake

look i'll come out on say it as an Long time eldar player its a stupidly low chance of suffering from peril and at some point its got mixed up that if you fail your psychic test you suffer peril ... and to compond that mistake the only thing that makes failure more like for me is another eldar player with runes of warding

ignoring nids for a second odds on a farseer with a warlcok with embolden suffering perils of the warp is 0.6% (yes the point is in the right place) odds on him also failing his ghost helm save 0.2% and chance of him failing his inv (even with the reroll) 0.15% ... so for give me for my earlier mistake

Yeah eldar just don't do perils of the warp do they?

Soooooo...the arguement is that when shadows says to take the test on 3d6, what it is really saying is instead to take the test on 3 or more d6, subtracting out enough dice so that the total comes down to 3d6 at the end for the actual test.

Thats an interesting idea, but the basis for concluding this is possible rests on........what? That part seems to be getting skipped. This is a permissive rules set after all, and the rule specificaslly calls for taking it on 3d6, not 4d6 subtract out one, or 5d6 subtract out two...its quite clear in its call for 3d6. There is no way that 3d6 is the same thing as 4d6-1...ceause as consideration of applying it to this rule shows, that changes the percentages from the rule in this case.

Sliggoth

With both rules calling for 3d6, it seems obvious that whatever solution is reached should only be the result of rolling 3 die. (although I like the 'they cancel out' approach better - which is how we play it at my FLGS)

Soooooo...the arguement is that when shadows says to take the test on 3d6, what it is really saying is instead to take the test on 3 or more d6, subtracting out enough dice so that the total comes down to 3d6 at the end for the actual test.

No it is not saying that. It is pointing out as long as the test (i.e. the number of dice you add up to compare to Ld) is taken on 3d6 how many you roll before hand does not matter for this rule. It is not giving you permission to roll more but if another rule does it is not inconsistent with this rule to roll more than 3d6 at the start as long as you have 3d6 to add together at the end (i.e. when you take the test).

Thats an interesting idea, but the basis for concluding this is possible rests on........what? That part seems to be getting skipped. This is a permissive rules set after all, and the rule specificaslly calls for taking it on 3d6, not 4d6 subtract out one, or 5d6 subtract out two...its quite clear in its call for 3d6.

Are you deliberately ignoring the posts or have you not read them? No one is saying that Shadows tells you to roll 4d6 or that ANY rule allows you to do this. But NO rule covers the eventually of Shadows vs Witnessing so you have to break some rules as they stand to get an answer on how to play this. Or are you suggesting that at this point you just pack up you models and call it a draw as the game has hung?

Please read the posts your comments have all already been covered several times.

If you have nothing to add that hasn't already been covered then why bother posting?

With both rules calling for 3d6, it seems obvious that whatever solution is reached should only be the result of rolling 3 die. (although I like the 'they cancel out' approach better - which is how we play it at my FLGS) .

Why will it only be the result of rolling 3d6? One rule makes you discard a d6 the other demands that you have 3d6 at the end to compare to Ld... So how do we make those work together?

Heck the solution you are campioning at the end is rolling 2 dice not 3...

I most certainly have read all the posts...and its that gaping hole that NOTHING allows us to roll 4d6 that is the biggest problem. You have brought up the fact that 40k is a permissive rules set, then you blithely invent the idea that rolling an extra d6 would somehow be the "best" solution when its a completely new mechanic.

NOTHING in either rule suggests that rolling 4d6 is allowed. The best that you can come up with is a convoluted arguement that shadows doesnt directly outlaw rolling any number of dice, so long as the final test is made on 3d6. Conveniently ignoring that nothing allows us to even consider rolling more dice. Instead of suggesting that other people arent reading the posts perhaps one would be better served to actually read a bit more onself?

While it might be a workable house rule to roll 4d6, it most certainly isnt close to RAW. Is it perhaps getting closer to RAI? Maybe, if it ends up with a fail chance in between the pure runes rule and the pure shadows rule then it might be....but its certainly not clear thats what GW intended because its not at all clear that GW even considered this problem at all.

There may well be NO RAI on this one, since its lijkley they didnt even consider it.



So suggesting 4d6 might be a good house rule is fine, suggesting that it is something more is ....... fail.



Sliggoth

There is NO RAW on this, as the two rules directly conflict with no resolution within this.

Hence rollling 4D6 and dropping the highest follows both SitW (as the test is still made on 3d6) while still giving the benefits of Runes, making it more likely to pass the psychic test (which is the point of Runes)

Yes, it is a compromise, however as there is no working rule this is the best compromise i can see.

So as long as we are clear that there is no RAW that allows us to use both rules, why dont we follow what the rules themselves suggest in this situation?

We have two abilities that are in conflict, the rules dont tell us which is stronger ... so lets just go with follow the RAW.


Before making the test, roll one d6 to test which ability is going to be used. Half the time we will be using the runes only, the other half of the time we will be using the shadow only.


Its easy (that seems to be a requirement for some odd reason) and not only that......it shockingly follows the RAW!



Sliggoth

Or follow the RAW which tells you to come to an agreement, whcih is just as easy to do as a 4+ dice roll off and way more satisfying?

That, shockingly, follows the RAW as well!

use 2D6 ...
use 3D6 reroll the highest ...
use 4D6 droping the lowest ...

... but don't just use one or the other rule.

@ Nosferatu Exactly, that works perfectly fine as well. But inventing a rule to roll 4d6 out of thin air and proclaiming that as the one correct rule is a bit less than fine. Rolling 4d6 is a wonderful house rule, that only breaks one of the two rules in question, but thats all it is...a house rule that breaks one of the two rules.


Anything that the players can agree on is fine, makes a great house rule if your group agrees thats the way it should go. But breaking one of the two rules, modifying the other rule a bit, and adding an entirely new mechanic from nowhere is definitely stretching it into a house rule thats not going to find eager acceptance everywhere.

Especially since its still not too clear that shadows isnt being broken as well. Its all well and good to proclaim that taking the test on 3d6 is the same as taking the test on 4d6-1 ...... but theres not much backing that up here.



One general rule of thumb is to break as few rules as possible, and inventing a new rule certainly has to fall under the category of breaking the very concept of what a permissive rules set IS.



Sliggoth

So suggesting 4d6 might be a good house rule is fine, suggesting that it is something more is ....... fail.

Please read the posts. You obviously haven't because i've stated on numerous occasions in responses to you and others that the 4d6 rule isn't RaW. We don't know RaI (I am with you that the writer completely forgot about the runmes when writing this rule), so we come up with the best system we can.

That is what I'm saying the 4d6 system is and it is all I am saying. Rolling off each time is another solution but a pretty ugly one if you ask me.

One general rule of thumb is to break as few rules as possible,

This is what the 4d6 system does. It does not break the Shadow rules at all and whilst it breaks the Runes rules it does keep their effect. Hence you are staying as close to both competing rules as possible.

This is all we are saying it applies the raw mechanics of each rule as near as possible. That is why we are suggesting it as a good method. Until we get a better method this seems sensible and logical.

No one is claiming this is RaW except you!

Just as an addendum: If we roll 4d6 and subtract one d6....we are testing shadows on 3d6 in one interpretation, but what do we do about the 4th die if it comes up a 1 or a 6? Shadows tells us to test on 3d6 AND it tells us that perils hits on the roll of any double 1 or 6. Not just on the roll of a double 1 or 6 on those 3 dice, but on ANY roll. So we cant subtract out the 4th die for peril considerations or else we are breaking shadows as well.



Sliggoth

FlingitNow wrote:

look i'll come out on say it as an Long time eldar player its a stupidly low chance of suffering from peril and at some point its got mixed up that if you fail your psychic test you suffer peril ... and to compond that mistake the only thing that makes failure more like for me is another eldar player with runes of warding

ignoring nids for a second odds on a farseer with a warlcok with embolden suffering perils of the warp is 0.6% (yes the point is in the right place) odds on him also failing his ghost helm save 0.2% and chance of him failing his inv (even with the reroll) 0.15% ... so for give me for my earlier mistake

Yeah eldar just don't do perils of the warp do they?

Daemons never do

Just as an addendum: If we roll 4d6 and subtract one d6....we are testing shadows on 3d6 in one interpretation, but what do we do about the 4th die if it comes up a 1 or a 6? Shadows tells us to test on 3d6 AND it tells us that perils hits on the roll of any double 1 or 6. Not just on the roll of a double 1 or 6 on those 3 dice, but on ANY roll. So we cant subtract out the 4th die for peril considerations or else we are breaking shadows as well.

Well the 4th dice can't come up 1 unless you've rolled four 1s so you get perils either way. Since the Shadows tells you to take the test on 3d6 it then states perils on any double 1 or 6 that is restricted to the 3d6 upon which you take the test. I don't see how it can be read any other way?

Well in a previous thread about Runes only, some argued that the discarded die doesn't count towards perils (like you do now), and some argued it did count. I think the does-count-crowd won because they had Gwar!. (JK).
I think the arguement is that all dice rolled are part of the result of the test, but to check failure you may substract a die, but it's still there, perhaps causing you Perils.
(If you agree with that statement, rolling 4d6 is definately breaking the rules of Shadows of the Warp, which I think it does anyhow).

Just to point out, in the rulebook, when it talks about leadership checks and morale checks, it says that the tests are 'taken' by rolling 2d6 and comparing it to the yadda yadda.

The key here is that 'taking the test' is done by rolling that many dice. So, 'taking the test' on 3d6, means rolling 3d6. It doesn't mean 'roll a bunch of dice and add the results of three dice together', it means roll 3d6. If you then remove a dice, like RWit tell you to do, that's fine. You still took the test on 3d6, by rolling 3 dice.

No rule tells you to roll 4d6....that is the problem with Fling's point.

He can say "test on 3d6, not roll 3d6" all he wants; however, it will not change the fact that neither of the rules tell you to "test on" or "roll" 4d6....this is why his rantings should be ignored...his theory breaks both the RAW and RAI of each of the rules.

It is an insteresting "house rule", but it is no way implied by, nor backed up by any rule set, whether you look at the BRB, Nids Dex, or Eldar Dex. He is wrong.

For now there is no official answer. However, as stated before, the Eldar faq gives us the best idea of how GW intends for it to be played...look to the Warding VS. Witnessing section for your best answer atm...at least it doesn't tell you to break BOTH rules by rolling 4d6...

You just do what the eldar faq says like ive psoted on the last 3 shadow vs witnessing threads in the last 5 days.

The faq says when one power that makes you roll 3 dice and discard highest for psychic test interacts with a power that makes you take a test on 3 dice (and has a secondary effect that has no bearing whatsoever on this situation, as perils are handled after the actual psychic test roll is made) Then you follow the faq, as its worded the exact same.

The situation is 99% similar to warding vs witnessing, at least gw didnt screw eldar over AGAIN with a new race neutering our psychic ability.

mon-keigh slayer wrote:You just do what the eldar faq says like ive psoted on the last 3 shadow vs witnessing threads in the last 5 days.

The faq says when one power that makes you roll 3 dice and discard highest for psychic test interacts with a power that makes you take a test on 3 dice (and has a secondary effect that has no bearing whatsoever on this situation, as perils are handled after the actual psychic test roll is made) Then you follow the faq, as its worded the exact same.

The situation is 99% similar to warding vs witnessing, at least gw didnt screw eldar over AGAIN with a new race neutering our psychic ability.

Except that is the whole purpose of shadow... its prupose IS to "neuter your psychic ability"

No rule tells you to roll 4d6....that is the problem with Fling's point.

Please read the thread where have I ever made this claim?

He can say "test on 3d6, not roll 3d6" all he wants; however, it will not change the fact that neither of the rules tell you to "test on" or "roll" 4d6....this is why his rantings should be ignored...his theory breaks both the RAW and RAI of each of the rules.

Knowing RaI is pretty impossible for this instance it is not clear. Until an FAQ comes out we don't know, unless you have an obvious answer that everyone is ignoring? Every solution suggested breaks RaW.

It is an insteresting "house rule", but it is no way implied by, nor backed up by any rule set, whether you look at the BRB, Nids Dex, or Eldar Dex. He is wrong.

How can I possibly be wrong? What are you on about are you incapable of reading plain English?!?! I don't think someone that struggles to understand such a simple concept should be handling eletrical goods I advise for your own safety you stay away from your computer and go back to your padded room.

For now there is no official answer.

Wow really I didn't realise this? It is not like I stated this time and again in basically every single post on this thread. Thank you for your "insight".

However, as stated before, the Eldar faq gives us the best idea of how GW intends for it to be played...look to the Warding VS. Witnessing section for your best answer atm...

Warding vs Witnessing was an entirely different situation as both items were from the same army hence making Witnessing completely dispense with warding's abilities did not effect game balance. Doing so again here for a very similar rule would because Shadow only has a 12" range, doesn't significantly increase your chances of peril and they have no runes of witnessing to stop your runes of warding. meaning you can shut down their psychic powers with impunity.

They may well rule this way, it seems unlikely that they would completely stuff over their newest army for old codex though does it?

t least it doesn't tell you to break BOTH rules by rolling 4d6...

By breaking both you mean bend the older rule keeping its core mechanics whilst not breaking the newer rule at all as opposed to completely dispensing with the newer rule to keep the older rule working as it did... Totally disrupting game balance as you go.

Heck just having them cancel each other out and rolling 2d6 is a better solution than the ignore shadow as if it is not there solution you are essentially proposing.

at least gw didnt screw eldar over AGAIN with a new race neutering our psychic ability.

That remains to be seen.

mrwittwer wrote:

mon-keigh slayer wrote:You just do what the eldar faq says like ive psoted on the last 3 shadow vs witnessing threads in the last 5 days.

The faq says when one power that makes you roll 3 dice and discard highest for psychic test interacts with a power that makes you take a test on 3 dice (and has a secondary effect that has no bearing whatsoever on this situation, as perils are handled after the actual psychic test roll is made) Then you follow the faq, as its worded the exact same.

The situation is 99% similar to warding vs witnessing, at least gw didnt screw eldar over AGAIN with a new race neutering our psychic ability.

Except that is the whole purpose of shadow... its prupose IS to "neuter your psychic ability"

So is the whole purpose of runes of warding... this argument doesn't do much to convince me.

I've read through but still don't understand why taking the test on 3d6 and then discarding one die after the result has been checked breaks any rules.

As far as fairness goes, I can't see a way anyone is going to be happy, however this interaction is clarified. Either Eldar are boned against tyranids, or tyranids now have a bunch of monsters with a free skill that doesn't do much to stop psykers Eldar Farseers who buy the Runes of Witnessing upgrade .

willydstyle wrote:

mrwittwer wrote:

mon-keigh slayer wrote:You just do what the eldar faq says like ive psoted on the last 3 shadow vs witnessing threads in the last 5 days.

The faq says when one power that makes you roll 3 dice and discard highest for psychic test interacts with a power that makes you take a test on 3 dice (and has a secondary effect that has no bearing whatsoever on this situation, as perils are handled after the actual psychic test roll is made) Then you follow the faq, as its worded the exact same.

The situation is 99% similar to warding vs witnessing, at least gw didnt screw eldar over AGAIN with a new race neutering our psychic ability.

Except that is the whole purpose of shadow... its purpose IS to "neuter your psychic ability"

So is the whole purpose of runes of warding... this argument doesn't do much to convince me.

Yes but if followed like warding vs witnessing, then Shadow serves almost no purpose, where as that was obviously not its intention. But its pointless to argue now since it will be faq'd.

And the FAQ is going to follow one of two precedents:

It will either say that it works like RoWard vs. RoWit

-or-

It will say they cancel each other out.

GW does not always follow precedent. And has been known to ingnore clear RaW as well. so i personally am not going to expect anything, except the unexpected.

I've read through but still don't understand why taking the test on 3d6 and then discarding one die after the result has been checked breaks any rules.

Really you've read the thread and don't understand how taking the test on 2d6 breaks the rules for Shadow that demands you take it on 3d6?

As far as fairness goes, I can't see a way anyone is going to be happy, however this interaction is clarified. Either Eldar are boned against tyranids, or tyranids now have a bunch of monsters with a free skill that doesn't do much to stop psykers Eldar Farseers who buy the Runes of Witnessing upgrade .

Actually the 4d6 method doesn;t "bone" Eldar at all it just reduces their chances of casting from 90 odd percent to 73ish% (with a 15% of perils before they get all their save throws). It far from "bones" Eldar it just reduces their psychic powers a bit you are still favourite to make them work most of the time, just not basically gauranteed. Without witnessing if you are within 12" of a 'Nid psker then yes your chances are less than 50%. So the runes of witnessing (paid upgrade) boost that up to about half way between normal and shadow. seems about right.

Remember again it only has a 12" range! It really does not greatly effect your chances of perils and just slows down your psychic powers by just 25% 3 out of 4 powers will still work as normal. I erally can't see how that "bones" the Eldar?

And the FAQ is going to follow one of two precedents:

It will either say that it works like RoWard vs. RoWit

-or-

It will say they cancel each other out.

I'd be hugely surprised if they followed the witnessing vs warding precedent. GW do not have a habit of making their shiny new models useless against models from an old codex.

Due to the continued dumbing down of 40k I'd be surprised if they ruled anything other than the 2d6 cancel each other out route for "simplicity". But we can always hope they do something sensible

But rolling 4d6 has the minor disadvantage of breaking the runes rule, breaking the shadow rule, and breaking the core concept of 40k being a permissive rules set. So while they *might* invent an entirely new rule set for this case, its unlikely they would do so.

We have no idea how they will errata/ faq it, but we shouldnt try and invent a new mechanic that is almost guaranteed to not be what they will pick.

Sliggoth

As i see it after correcting for my early mistake there are only 2 options.
Following Witness vs Wardings doesn't work as shadow doesn't cause peril on rolls of 12+
2D6 does almost nothing to the chances of casting the power and lowers the chance the perils to the farseer

That leaves 3D6 reroll the highest and 4D6 drop the lowest.
4D6 breaks all the rules while trying to follow the intentions of the two rules.
3D6 although changing the drop the highest to a reroll meets more of the rules from shadow and witness. However since it use a reroll this blocks a reroll from a warlock ... with out an additional rule breaking allowing the test to be redone.

================================================
3D6 vs LD10 = 50% chance of casting and 14.8% chance of perril (shadow)
3D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 98.1% chance of casting and 7.8 chance of perril (runes of witness)

3D6 (hybrid of above) vs Ld10 = 98.1% and 14.8% chance of perril (doesn't do enough)
2D6 vs LD10 = 91.6% chance of casting 5.5% chance of perril (again doesn't do enough)

4D6 drop the highest vs Ld10 = 72.9% chance of casting and 16.7% chance of perril
3d6 rerolling highest = 70.1% chance of passing and 15.8% chance of perril

But rolling 4d6 has the minor disadvantage of breaking the runes rule, breaking the shadow rule, and breaking the core concept of 40k being a permissive rules set. So while they *might* invent an entirely new rule set for this case, its unlikely they would do so.

As has been pointed out it doesn't break Shadows rules. Anythig you choose to do will break the permissive rule set "core concept" because no rule tells you what to do so you're banging a mute drum there.

As Tri has pointed out the 3d6 re-rolling or the 4d6 discarding methods actually provide a balanced out come.

I do fear they will go down the 2d6 route which doesn't hurt the eldar at all and still greatly damages the core concept of shadow in the warp. I wouldn't be surprised if GW ruled that Shadow just makes the runes totally useless.

We don't know what GW will do why not do something that applies the core mechanics of both rules. Applies the core concpet of both rules and gives an outcome that is balanced in the middle of the 2 rules...

Or is that just too difficult?

@ Flingit Ahh, you perhaps need to follow your own advice of: read the thread.

As was pointed out by another astute dakkaite, shadows tells us to take the psychic test on 3d6. Going to the brb we discover that a psychic test is a leadership test, so when we then continue on and look at the rules for taking leadership tests we discover that indeed we roll two dice for the test. So shadows tells us to take a psychic (leadership) test on 3d6, we must roll 3d6 to take that test. By the rules for taking the test we arent allowed to roll any more or any less than the number of dice involved in taking the test.


So it more comes down to how much of each rule will be broken.

Nothing works cleanly, since the two rules have a great deal of precise wording. The one part that at least breaks neither rule is what triggers a test, the rolling of a pair of 1s or 6s. The normal psychic test calls for perils on the roll of a double1 or double 6, shadows modifies it to any double1 or double6. Not a perfect match of wording, but about as good as GW normally gets.

One minor problem is that shadows says any double rolled....so thats one of the problems with rolling 4d6 and subtracting one. There is no rule allowing us to subtract one die from the shadows peril check, so perils would trigger off of however many dice are rolled. This would raise the percentage of getting perils to over 25%....

GW has at times had other rules conflicts that were completely unresolvable. For say, both units in a cc having a rule that says they always go first. What GW has done for those conflicts in the past was to simply roll a d6 and see which rule won out in that particular instance.

Thats why I mentioned the roll off as a possibility earlier; seeing if the dread power of the hive mind can be defeated by the skill and knowledge of the farseer might well tickle their twisted little hearts. Its by no means perfect but it is a solution they have used before.


We dont know which way they are going to flip on this one, I would just like to suggest not getting too wedded to any drastic new method early on.




Sliggoth

Fair enough Still think it is the method that by far makes the most sense of both the rules. To be honest I expect GW to either rule 2d6 Ld or that Witnessing becomes useless whilst in shadow range. Neither for me is particularly balanced (one too much for Eldar the other too much for Tyranids). The dice off is balanced but unpredictable which is why I wouldn't want it in a competitive game.

The only method I'm really against is the 3d6 check all 3 for perils doubles and then discard one as Shadow is supposed to shut down psykers rather than significantly incraese the chance of perils so this would completely neuter the rule. Even if i was using Eldar this to me would be a horrid way to do it.

I think GW Will rule that you test on 5D6 and Drop the lowest and the Highest.

Why? Because it's GW.

Gwar! wrote:I think GW Will rule that you test on 5D6 and Drop the lowest and the Highest.

Why? Because it's GW.

Not thinking out side the box gwar i think GW will ....
Not see a problem and not answer this, ever.

Not thinking out side the box gwar i think GW will ....
Not see a problem and not anser this ever.

Ladies and gentlemen I think we have a winner...

Or they may answer it one way that totally breaks RaW in a way no one ever imagined and then change their minds a few weeks later...

I guessing they go with roll 5 dice and then call your opponent susan.

You cant say RoWa vs RoWi doesnt apply because perils functions different when the actual mechanic language being debated is the exact same.

And besides, perils attacks happen AFTER a psychic test roll is made, so the whole thing with shadows perils functioning differently doesnt effect this one bit, You use the eldar faq answer for RoWa vs RoWi, as the only differences between the rules dont come into play until after youve made your roll on 3d6.

mon-keigh slayer wrote:You cant say RoWa vs RoWi doesnt apply because perils functions different when the actual mechanic language being debated is the exact same.

And besides, perils attacks happen AFTER a psychic test roll is made, so the whole thing with shadows perils functioning differently doesnt effect this one bit, You use the eldar faq answer for RoWa vs RoWi, as the only differences between the rules dont come into play until after youve made your roll on 3d6.

i said this as well till i rember/ was reminded that Runes of warding cause peril on a 12+ that on its own genarates a 37.50% chance of peril.

Yes, but the discussion of how a perils occurs, is completely seperate from the psychic test inr egards to how many dice are being rolled, so you do what the faq suggests for rowa vs rowi, roll 3d6 and ignore the highest for the psychic test, then apply shadows peril rules over the normal rules.

So 3d6 rolled, ignore highest for psychic power going off, then check the 3 dice for perils as specified by shadow in the warp.

Our solution is to roll 2d6 - I.E. they cancel each other out.

Yes: Farseers still have an easy time of passing psychic tests.

However, farseers with RWit have a ridiculously high chance of passing psychic tests. With just Rwit in place, one needs to roll either: two sixes and a five, or three sixes. Those are the only ways to fail. This is a very high chance.

Now, Shadow in the Warp, makes it so that psykers have a harder time using powers. Which it does to farseers, whether or not they have Runes of Witnessing.

Passing a test on 2d6 is harder than passing a test on 3d6 remove the highest. Yes, farseers with Rwit still have a high chance of passing a psychic test, but they paid for an upgrade to make that chance even higher. Hence, it makes sense that this power would still make it easier than for other psykers, but Shadows still makes it harder than if there were no Shadows involved.


The reason there is this discussion (and was when Rwit and Rward came out) is that Shadows is unlike Imperial Psychic defense, which works by nullifying successfully cast powers. Nullifying successful powers has a guaranteed, known chance to work (like the runic weapon's 4+). Altering the chance of a power being successful, however, is a more complicated process (while not always as effective, against all armies but Eldar, who have a lot of defense against perils anyway, it is more dangerous to the psykers.



Long winded post is long winded, and probably after the discussion has ended. C'est la vie.

So if I understand the argument right, eldar pay extra points to increase the chances of their powers going off.
But nid psychic defence should completely negate any of these bonuses, therefore 4d6 is the most fair, because it doesnt actually make it worse for eldar then just straight up 3d6 with no runes.

I think the cancels each other out argument is the best, simply because it balances the two abilities out the best.

except it doesnt work like that, roll 3d6 check the lowest 2 dice for powers success or failure then determine perils with all 3 dices and shadows perils rules.

That one is also good. Cancels is just fast, and we are laid back enough about this stuff where I play that its not big deal.

The 4d6 argument is utter crap though.

Wasn't this already covered in the FAQ for the last tyranid codex?

from the tyranid FAQ:

"Q: How do the Eldar Runes of Witnessing work when facing a hive tyrant with shadow in the warp?
A: The runes neutralise the effect of the shadow in the warp for that Farseer, so the Farseer will take psychic tests using 2d6 as normal."

chromedog wrote:Wasn't this already covered in the FAQ for the last tyranid codex?

from the tyranid FAQ:

"Q: How do the Eldar Runes of Witnessing work when facing a hive tyrant with shadow in the warp?
A: The runes neutralise the effect of the shadow in the warp for that Farseer, so the Farseer will take psychic tests using 2d6 as normal."

4th ed SitW is completely different to 5th ed SitW, so the FAQ is invalid.

Haven't read the 5th ed codex yet (but since I'm getting out of 40k anyway, that's not important).

So if I understand the argument right, eldar pay extra points to increase the chances of their powers going off.
But nid psychic defence should completely negate any of these bonuses, therefore 4d6 is the most fair, because it doesnt actually make it worse for eldar then just straight up 3d6 with no runes.

What are you on about? Please read the thread before posting stuff like this.

The straight 3d6 results in about a 50% chance to pass the test.

The Straight runes (3d6 discard highest) results in a 98% chance to pass the test.

Then you have the 2d6 which is a 92% chance so very small difference so basically ignoring Shadows.

Or the 4d6 which results in a 73% chance right in the middle of the Shadows effect without runes and the runes effect without shadows. How is that not fair?

The Warding vs Witnessing precedent doesn't apply because that was rules within one codex. This is how 2 different armies interact. Thus the decision will greatly effect game balance.

Please read the thread as ALL of this has been covered before.

I have read the whole thread. Asking me to do it again isnt a counter argument.

point to be made for those that have burnt their old codex
4th Tyranids :-Shadow 3D6 discounting the lowest roll ... no peril
5th Tyranid :-Shadow Test on 3d6 peril on an double 1 or 6

I have read the whole thread. Asking me to do it again isnt a counter argument.

So were you deliberately lying then when you claimed that using the 4d6 method made no change from just using the shadows rules with this statement:

But nid psychic defence should completely negate any of these bonuses

Or are you lying now about having read the thread?

FlingitNow wrote:

I have read the whole thread. Asking me to do it again isnt a counter argument.

So were you deliberately lying then when you claimed that using the 4d6 method made no change from just using the shadows rules with this statement:

No, I think canceling each other is the best way. Or maybe roll 3d6 and remove the lowest.

But nid psychic defence should completely negate any of these bonuses

Or are you lying now about having read the thread?

Error in spelling, meant to say shouldnt