Please Read: Due to the unprecedented length of this thread, and the heated discussion contained inside, I must ask that people wishing to participate make a note of these three FAQs before doing so, since they are somewhat important:
Page 26 – Runes of Warding
Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must
roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering
Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”
Page 26 – Runes of Witnessing
Change the last two sentences to “A Farseer with runes
of witnessing must roll an extra dice when taking
Psychic tests and discards the highest result.
Page 33 – Shadow in the Warp, second paragraph
Change to “Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid
with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an
extra dice when taking Psychic tests, and will suffer a
Perils of the Warp attack on the roll of any double 1 or
double 6.
Thank you for reading, and try and keep any further discussion civil!
With the new FAQ, i've seen a lot of people saying that two lots will stack, forcing enemy psykers to use 4D6. I haven't, however, seen nearly as many posts rebutting this, and since I play Eldar, it could impact me later on for whatever reason (perhaps a doubles game with my and another Eldar player).
The argument i've heard for it is that they're both distinct items of wargear on different models, and not a collective special rule (like SitW), with no restriction on the effects stacking and ambiguous wording, as well as having nothing like "if an enemy psyker is affected by Runes of Warding..." like SitW does, which would render a second lot of runes redundant.
The argument i've heard against is that whilst they're seperate pieces of wargear on seperate models, they are both the same item, and do not stack for that reason and the reason that they are not given permission to stack, as well as not having a clause such as "...for each Runes of Warding...". I've also heard the argument that since they are plural, it already portrays multiple runes affecting the model, but I question that argument due to the fact that it does not deal directly with any sort of rule.
I'm honestly leaning towards the 'For' argument, for obvious reasons, but after trying to argue that viewpoint, I was met with harsh criticism (which to me was quite unnecessary, since some of it felt quite venomous and seemed to imply that I was a cheating bastard for just suggesting it), and left me thinking if arguing 'For' would be a waste of time in future, and whether I should go 'Against' just to avoid arguments.
Obviously i'd prefer more of a reason than that, so if someone could explain it to me, either why I am right or why I am wrong, using the internet's emotionless tone to try and come across in a civil way whilst still addressing the point, then i'd be grateful.
I haven't really seen this argued (for or against), however, (and I know that this holds no weight here, just throwing out for completeness sake), the INATFAQ, clarified that they do not stack. I generally only 1 run Farseer anyway, so this has yet to come up in my games.
Happyjew wrote:I haven't really seen this argued (for or against), however, (and I know that this holds no weight here, just throwing out for completeness sake), the INATFAQ, clarified that they do not stack. I generally only 1 run Farseer anyway, so this has yet to come up in my games.
iircINAT clarified that before the recent Errata - so they might want to re-examine.
Happyjew wrote:I haven't really seen this argued (for or against), however, (and I know that this holds no weight here, just throwing out for completeness sake), the INATFAQ, clarified that they do not stack. I generally only 1 run Farseer anyway, so this has yet to come up in my games.
iircINAT clarified that before the recent Errata - so they might want to re-examine.
Just checked the INATFAQ, and it's in red, which means it's new. That or someone did not fix the faq accordingly.
They would not stack. The rules for Runes of Warding state clearly the procedure for using Rune of Warding. If someone follows those rules they have satisfied the requirement for Rune of Warding as a whole.
If RoW stated you roll an extra die, not just 3D6 then you could argue it stacks.
The reason you probably got lashed at for suggesting it is because most players already consider Runes of Warding EXTREMELY powerful for it's meager 15pts. Forcing a 4D6 check for 30pts of upgrade would be downright broken.
BlueDagger wrote:They would not stack. The rules for Runes of Warding state clearly the procedure for using Rune of Warding. If someone follows those rules they have satisfied the requirement for Rune of Warding as a whole.
If RoW stated you roll an extra die, not just 3D6 then you could argue it stacks.
The reason you probably got lashed at for suggesting it is because most players already consider Runes of Warding EXTREMELY powerful for it's meager 15pts. Forcing a 4D6 check for 30pts of upgrade would be downright broken.
You mean the errata that says "roll an extra die" and not "roll 3d6"?
As for INAT - I hadn't noticed they updated it - apologies Happyjew. I disagree with it and think they stack, unlike SiTW.
BlueDagger wrote:They would not stack. The rules for Runes of Warding state clearly the procedure for using Rune of Warding. If someone follows those rules they have satisfied the requirement for Rune of Warding as a whole.
If RoW stated you roll an extra die, not just 3D6 then you could argue it stacks.
The reason you probably got lashed at for suggesting it is because most players already consider Runes of Warding EXTREMELY powerful for it's meager 15pts. Forcing a 4D6 check for 30pts of upgrade would be downright broken.
This is what I wanted to avoid really, nobody having any solid argument either way.
I've explained my side to a few and they agreed that when they saw it my way, I could well be correct, but I don't know how to get my viewpoint across to people who are far too stubborn to see anyone having a different opinion as little more than a rules lawyer.
I can see where they come from, but I believe that my argument is better, they come up with excuses that they believe invalidate my argument, and simply state that i'm wrong with nothing to back it up.
I also tried the Autarch Master Strategist argument, stating that it does stack despite no wording in the rule and no errata to add wording to it. They argued that it wasn't Runes of Warding, and therefore cannot be used to suggest RoWa stacks. They also argued that it was FAQ'd and RoWa wasn't, and rejected the idea that they simply missed FAQing it.
So, they seem to be rejecting any and all evidence that shows my viewpoint has basis both in the rules and in the codex, and merely arguing that since I have no evidence [that they are choosing to accept as such], my argument is invalid, despite them having even less.
I have just looked at the FAQ and I believe they do stack since each farseer is seperate and each rune makes them roll an extra dice. It did not state one or more like it does for psychic hoods.
Grakmar wrote:With the latest errata, they clearly do stack.
However, that makes them incredibly powerful. So, IMO, this is a case of either:
A) GW not realizing what they were doing and making a mistake.
B) GW intentionally buffing Eldar to make them a counterbalance to GK.
I think A is more likely, so I wouldn't take advantage of this "exploit".
I disagree, the way it was before a lot of people would still pass the test easily on 3d6 and after that Eldar have no other psychic defenses. Shutting down psychic powers hardly stops any of the current armies (including gk) from still being able to kick ass.
bagtagger wrote:I have just looked at the FAQ and I believe they do stack since each farseer is seperate and each rune makes them roll an extra dice. It did not state one or more like it does for psychic hoods.
That's one of the points of my argument, that despite both Runes having the same name and effect, they are seperate entities existing on seperate, individual models.
Their counter was that they are the same thing and they don't explicitly state that they stack, and that if they do stack, they want a model with Furious Charge that joins a unit that confers Furious Charge onto itself when a certain condition is met, to get +2 Strength and +2 Initiative, since they don't state that they do not stack.
I argued that it is not the same, since a single model would have 2 of the same special rule, and since they already have it, they cannot gain it again. They said that that doesn't matter, and could not provide evidence as to why.
I could also show them the part about Psychic Powers stacking unless stated otherwise in their rules, lending further strength to my argument, but that would likely be dismissed because RoWa are not psychic powers.
Grakmar wrote:With the latest errata, they clearly do stack.
However, that makes them incredibly powerful. So, IMO, this is a case of either:
A) GW not realizing what they were doing and making a mistake. B) GW intentionally buffing Eldar to make them a counterbalance to GK.
I think A is more likely, so I wouldn't take advantage of this "exploit".
As much as I do think it's a mistake on GW's part, and the fact that two Farseers at levels where I can afford them is worse than a Farseer + an Autarch so I won't be using them, I can't help but disagree about taking advantage of an "exploit".
It's an official change in the rules, and all I am doing is following them, to not do that would be in itself breaking the rules. If GW directly change the rules, then I am obligated to follow them, the same as when Necron players used Scarab Conga Lines before their FAQ. It was seen as a legal tactic because they were simply following the rules, I don't see how this is much different.
See now, I wanna play in an Apocalypse game. Take 10 Farsers at 90 points a pop (after choosing a psychic power). Bam! All enemy psykers are testing on 14d6. Not sure how they will roll below a 10 now.
Happyjew wrote:See now, I wanna play in an Apocalypse game. Take 10 Farsers at 90 points a pop (after choosing a psychic power). Bam! All enemy psykers are testing on 14d6. Not sure how they will roll below a 10 now.
And that's why it's reccomend that you talk things over before starting an Apoc game - because there's nothing stopping the other side from doing the same.
An rolling a 4th D6 also satisfies "an extra die", since it is an extra one on top of the 3D6.
If it said "rolls 1 more die than normal" then it'd work your way, but "an extra die" isn't a cap in an of itself, since every die after it will be "an extra die".
Yes, you are rolling "an extra die" when you roll 3D6, but you're also rolling "an extra die" when you roll 4D6, or 5D6. RoWa 1 adds an extra die, making it 3D6, then RoWa 2 adds an extra die to the 3D6, making it 4D6.
*facepalm* I see the FAQ now... greaaat GW.. greaaat.
While it's about a 70% sure they would stack now, you are goign to have a REALLY hard sell with a TO to allow it. It's not 100% clear that they do stack so it would come down to a TO choice. Most will have a hard time swallowing a 4D6 perils on 12+ test for enemy psykers regardless of location on the board.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Psychic powers not from the same source were clarified as indeed stacking, so why not psychic defences?
Because there is noting that allows them to stack.
3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.
Its ambiguous to say the least and I can see how it can be read either way.
Bottom line ask your TO, or discuss it with your group before hand.
Which is more than the people I argued with seemed to be able to do.
Seeing how ambiguous it is, i'm happy to simply D6 it before the game (choosing the least advantageous option is subjective, since 3D6 is the least for me, whereas 4D6 is the least for my opponent; why should I have to shoulder the disadvantage?) but to them there was no question about it; they believed wholeheartedly that I was wrong and was simply being a Rules Lawyer, with no willingness to accept any sort of compromise.
That's really what sparked me to post this thread, as I wasn't sure if it was as clear cut as they insist it is. Now I know that it is far from clear, and they're simply being stubborn.
Avatar 720 wrote:Seeing how ambiguous it is, i'm happy to simply D6 it before the game (choosing the least advantageous option is subjective, since 3D6 is the least for me, whereas 4D6 is the least for my opponent; why should I have to shoulder the disadvantage?) but to them there was no question about it; they believed wholeheartedly that I was wrong and was simply being a Rules Lawyer, with no willingness to accept any sort of compromise.
That's really what sparked me to post this thread, as I wasn't sure if it was as clear cut as they insist it is. Now I know that it is far from clear, and they're simply being stubborn.
"If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."
I would say there is equal weight in this case, neither of the two interpretations are incorrect.
Thanks but no thanks, a D6 roll gives two interpretations of equal weight an equal chance (which is more ethical than one interpretation being 'wrong' for no real reason, in my opinion) instead of one being automatically wrong simply because it was the interpretation of the person who brought it up.
On the forum, it's a fine way of suggesting how to deal with it, but i'm going to suggest a D6 roll in any games (if we did it the way the article suggests, my Farseer will always roll 3D6, since I dislike the redundancy of 2 RoWa farseers and so only use 1, and rolling 3D6 goes against my interpretation so i'm more than happy to chance it being 4D6) where the issue arises.
After rereading the eldar codex I have this further little tidbit:
"A farseer can use runes of warding to throw up psychic interference..."
So runes of warding are wargear, that give the farseer a continual passive psychic ability. Meaning that likely GW does mean for the powers to stack.
Similar to a piece of wargear that would let a psycher use a power a second time...the wargear is giving the psycher the power but it is a psychic power. Yes this makes eldar extremely powerful against psycher heavy armies, but its also a complete waste of points against most armies so GW may well have thought that balanced. They have made similar rulings in the past, the cheapness of the vastly more useful deff rolla for orks comes to mind.
if you have 2 librarians with psychic hoods both in range of a psyker can one attempt to block the power if the other failed? no...why not because it specifies that it can't
dark eldar torment grenade launchers....enemy models within 6" of 1 or more vehicles with this upgrade suffer -1Ld
therefore if both runes of warding are in range (which they always are), why not "add an extra dice" because of farseer one, then "add an extra dice" for farseer two? nothing is telling you you can't whereas in those two examples both state they don't stack
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Note that Psychic Power is bolded in the FAQ.. eldar psychic powers are guide,doom,mindwar, fortune, and Eldritch Storm. Runes of warding is wargear.
Runes of Warding reads: " A farseer can use runes of warding to throw up Psychic interference to hinder his foe." All fluff.. Just take it and elminate it from the equation.. no rules are to be derived from this. And the it goes on to read how actully Runes works. " All enemy psychic tests must be taken . . blah blah"
Runes of warding is not a Psychic power, its a piece of wargear.
nosferatu1001 wrote:We know that. Just pointing out that "stacking" seems to be the general rule, with specific rules needed to prevent it.
Not that it matters because there is equal weight in this case, neither of the two interpretations are incorrect.
The action taker is the one with the RoW rule, and the ethical choice is to take the least advantageous of the two interpretations.
yes and both have runes therefore both rules apply, all other rules state that they're only applied once when they could stack this does not, therefore it does
Hukoseft wrote:yes and both have runes therefore both rules apply, all other rules state that they're only applied once when they could stack this does not, therefore it does
where is your evidence to say otherwise?
Because there is noting that allows them to stack. (Permissive rule set says we must be allowed to do something, or we can not do it.))
3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.
If you are rolling 3D6 you are rolling an extra die and you fulfill the "Roll an extra die" for both of the RoW.
But It is ambiguous to say the least and I can see how it can be read either way.
and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."
so the army with RoW is the action taker and should take the least advantageous interpretation.
DeathReaper wrote:3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.
You keep saying that. I disagree.
"extra" means that there is a default die number. "Of course there is - Psychic tests are taken on Leadership, therefore 2d6."
So SitW "satisfies" the extra die from RoW? What about Runes of Witnessing?
They all say "Roll an extra die". If, somehow, a model was affected by both the eldar wargear and SitW, he would be taking a test on 5d6.
Using the opinion that "Roll an extra die" is satisfied by a 3d6 roll means that you would only roll 3d6 for a model in that situation.
Either they stack because they each add an extra die, or SitW, et al. satisfy the "roll an extra die."
Ruling in favour of allowing the 4d6 argument would set a dangerous precident for games, like apoc, that allow more than 2 HQ choices. I play eldar, and when I look at this particular interpretation of the rule all I can think is "bs". My argument would be against allowing this.
The only way I can see this being the intended interpretation is if Mat Ward wrote the Eldar codex
DeathReaper wrote:3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.
You keep saying that. I disagree.
"extra" means that there is a default die number. "Of course there is - Psychic tests are taken on Leadership, therefore 2d6."
So SitW "satisfies" the extra die from RoW? What about Runes of Witnessing?
They all say "Roll an extra die". If, somehow, a model was affected by both the eldar wargear and SitW, he would be taking a test on 5d6.
Using the opinion that "Roll an extra die" is satisfied by a 3d6 roll means that you would only roll 3d6 for a model in that situation.
Either they stack because they each add an extra die, or SitW, et al. satisfy the "roll an extra die."
Disagree all you want that does not make it any less true.
They say "Roll an extra die" This means "Roll one extra die" the statements are synonymous.
Normally you roll 2D6, by rolling 3d6 you have satisfied the "an extra die" portion of both rules.
It comes down to questions in a situation like this:
1) Player 1 tries to cast a psychic power (Does he have a psyker that allows psychic powers to be cast? If yes go to 2)
2) Does player 2 have anything to stop the casting of said psychic power? (If yes go to 3)
3) what is the effect of Player 2's rules? (They make Player 1 roll an extra die when casting psychic powers, he has two such rules in range, now that we know the effect of the rules we go to 4)
4) Player 1 needs to roll an extra die when casting psychic powers, normally he tests on 2D6, two rules tell us Player 1 needs to Roll an extra die when casting psychic powers, so we check and see if Player 1 is rolling an extra die. we see that Player 1 is rolling 3D6, which is an extra die, and we see that both rules are satisfied.(go to 5)
5) we roll a psychic test on 3D6
Seeing as how RoWa affect my opponent and only when my opponent is rolling for Psychic tests, I would argue, that my opponent would have to be the action taker. I'm just forcing him to roll extra dice. However, HE is the one taking action.
With the change in wording in the faq from a hard cap "3d6" to an open ended "extra die", what was the purpose of this errata if not to allow them to stack?
Aimed at DeathReaper, since he seems to be spearheading the "No" camp. Just playing DA.
I think the reason they changed all the abilities to just an extra d6, is so SitW/RoWa and RoWi could stack. Before, all three abilities stated to roll 3d6 and then we were left to figure out how SitW worked with RoWi.
Happyjew wrote:Seeing as how RoWa affect my opponent and only when my opponent is rolling for Psychic tests, I would argue, that my opponent would have to be the action taker. I'm just forcing him to roll extra dice. However, HE is the one taking action.
and your argument would be incorrect.
The action taker is the player with the rule, since you have a rule that forces them to roll an extra D6.
It is a passive ability, but the one forcing the rule on the other player is the "Action Taker" because without that rule there is nothing extra needed on the part of the player rolling the dice.
Also, I am not in the NO camp, I am in the "It is ambiguous" camp, and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."
culsandar wrote:With the change in wording in the faq from a hard cap "3d6" to an open ended "extra die", what was the purpose of this errata if not to allow them to stack?
No one, but the people that changed the wording, knows why they changed the wording.
If there are Runes of Witnessing and SitW, the Seer rolls 4d6, dropping the highest. Why wouldn't they just roll 3d6, as that already satisfies the extra d6?
Hukoseft wrote:yes and both have runes therefore both rules apply, all other rules state that they're only applied once when they could stack this does not, therefore it does
where is your evidence to say otherwise?
Because there is noting that allows them to stack. (Permissive rule set says we must be allowed to do something, or we can not do it.))
3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.
If you are rolling 3D6 you are rolling an extra die and you fulfill the "Roll an extra die" for both of the RoW.
But It is ambiguous to say the least and I can see how it can be read either way.
and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."
so the army with RoW is the action taker and should take the least advantageous interpretation.
it satisfies it for the first seer yes, as they have added an extra dice....however the other seer has not therefore the requirements of that seers wargear have not been fulfilled....go take a logic class, if you have two things that make you roll an extra dice you add an extra dice for each wargear that makes it happen
you say there is equal evidence both ways yet you are unable to provide any evidence other than your illogical statement that it has been fulfilled, what other evidence do you have? go ahead convince me I'm wrong....I dare you
yes psychic hood makes powers pointless occassionally and they both apply....so both runes should apply
it is NOT ambiguous....add an extra dice(seer one done....makes it 3d6)...oh look seer 2 has it too....add an extra dice(seer 2 done.....makes it 4d6) how ambiguous is that?
concerning the 'reason' needed to change runes of warding from a hard 3d6 to add an extra dice.....there was no reason other than to make it stack, there was already an faq regarding runes of wit vs runes of ward, and there is nothing else that interacts with it in a similar way
ergo RAW and RAI(by my pov) it does stack....still waiting on evidence proving me wrong, oh P.S talking at my apoc game yesterday they all agreed it does stack, and that anyone who abused it would be slapped hard
I'm not gonna play it this way but this is how I see it:
1) Psyker attempts to cast power
2) Farseer 1 Runes of Warding Triggered; roll 3d6 for test
3) Farseer 2 Runes of Warding Triggered; roll 4d6 4) Take Test
5) Beat up Eldar player
DeathReaper wrote:Rules cancel out other rules all the time.
You're not advocating canceling out. You're advocating one piece of wargear overriding another.
SitW would mean the RoWi does nothing, or RoWi means SitW does nothing - how do you resolve which one wins?
Also RoWi vs RoWa?
Talk about ethics all you want - insinuate that I'm doing something bad by saying they stack.
Your interpretation causes more problems than it solves.
Despite playing Eldar, and throwing lots of pints into Jetbike Seer Councils I would say no to stacking, even though yes the rules allow it to stack. however I would like to play those pesky Space Marine Uber-Psykers like Mephiston and Grey Knight Libbys who for so long have been shutting down my farseers with Hoods and stupidly good rolls,
When I started playing Eldar I thought that Warlocks needed to take psychic checks to cast their powers... I hated the guts out of librarians back then!
Avatar 720 wrote:Two Dire Avenger Catapults being Assault 4
Two Death Spinners being Assault 4
Both cases where two of one piece of wargear (weapon) have stacked shots instead of being two seperate weapons.
However both of these effects are explained in the codex. They tell you exactly what you can do. 4 shots.. There it is in black and white. The RoW has no such explanation, or additional FAQ. GW does not even call the these extra shots from the Exarch “stacking” so I don’t believe we can make the assumption that they are, or apply an ambiguously written FAQ apply to wargear, number of shots, or anything else you can think of except “psychic powers cast multiple times on the same unit”.
If RoW was a Psychic power then you would have a case.
Remember its a permissive rules set. If it doesn't say it, you can't make it up.
Another part of the whole problem is GW never explains to us what "Stacking" is , does, when or how it is applied.
What if my point of view was you must roll 3d6 for each farseer in play (pass a test twice if I have 2 farseers)
or you must roll 6d6 if i have two farseers in play. Maye 6d6 twice... (not that im advocating either of these) Both in my view have been stacked.
DeathReaper wrote:Adding 1d6 satisfies the Rolling an extra die, on both RoW's
Player 1 is about to cast a psychic power.
Player 2 says I have these rules called RoW which makes you roll an extra die on your psychic test, both RoW say this.
Player 1 picks up 3D6 and the 1d6 extra satisfies the add an extra die for both RoW.
This is where we have to ask the Question, is player 1 Rolling an extra die?
A: Yes
Q: Are both rules satisfied by Rolling an extra die?
A: Yes, as they say to Roll an extra die, and Player 1 is "Rolling an extra die"
no they don't....this is where your logic is failing, you're only rolling an extra dice, but there are two sources causing you to roll extra dice, you are only satisfying one source, you need to satisfy the other source by rolling an extra dice on top of the extra dice already added
if two people say they are going to give you an apple, you receive one apple, have both of them given you an apple? no therefore a requirement has not been met yet
Avatar 720 wrote:Two Dire Avenger Catapults being Assault 4
Two Death Spinners being Assault 4
Both cases where two of one piece of wargear (weapon) have stacked shots instead of being two seperate weapons.
However both of these effects are explained in the codex.
Not the point, you asked for an example of where Wargear stacks, I gave you one. It doesn't matter whether or not GW used the exact word, the shots stacked to form one Assault 4 weapon.
As for your permissive ruleset argument, GW haven't said that the Autarch's Master Strategist rule stacks either, they have only said that they would play it is if they do. An FAQ is how GW would play under certain circumstances, and they are not rules themselves; Master Strategist has not been errata'd to use the word 'stack' anywhere, and yet the official interpretation is that they do.
If we use your argument, GW are wrong by playing that Master Strategist adds +0 to +2 to the reserve roll, since they do not state that it stacks in the rule and thus, using this permissive ruleset, they do not.
Hukoseft wrote:no they don't....this is where your logic is failing, you're only rolling an extra dice, but there are two sources causing you to roll extra dice, you are only satisfying one source, you need to satisfy the other source by rolling an extra dice on top of the extra dice already added
if two people say they are going to give you an apple, you receive one apple, have both of them given you an apple? no therefore a requirement has not been met yet
as all they ask player one to do is the underlined (AKA roll an extra die), both are satisfied.
Player 1 is required to roll an extra die for RoW.
Player has 2 RoW that tell player 1 to roll an extra die.
Player rolls 3d6 instead of 2d6 and we check to see if he has satisfied both RoW rules.
Will Player 1 Roll an extra die?
If yes he satisfies one of the RoW rules. Then we look at the second RoW, and it says player 1 must roll an extra die...
We check to see if player 1 has satisfied the second RoW rules, and we find out that player one will roll an extra die, thereby satisfying Both RoW.
If it had said roll two extra die (Or an extra extra die), you wound have something, but it only says to roll on (Through the use of An, in the phrase).
but what you're ignoring is the fact he is not told to roll an extra dice once, he asked to roll an extra dice twice
what you dont seem to be getting is that rolling an extra dice for the first runes of warding does NOT satisfy the requirements for the second set, as it was for another piece of wargear
are you also arguing that someone who has runes of witnessing vs someone who has runes of warding does not roll 4d6 and removes the highest and that he just rolls 3d6?
DeathReaper wrote:Then we look at the second RoW, and it says player 1 must roll an extra die...
We check to see if player 1 has satisfied the second RoW rules, and we find out that player one will roll an extra die, thereby satisfying Both RoW.
If it had said roll two extra die (Or an extra extra die), you wound have something, but it only says to roll on (Through the use of An, in the phrase).
Again, you're ignoring the fact that you've also satisfied RoWi and SitW - and you have no basis for doing so.
You also are ignoring the fact that you're making an assumption that the default roll is 2d6. If a psyker in a future codex has to roll an extra die for psychic tests, does he get to ignore SitW and RoWa? Your ruling seems to be yes.
You also still haven't addressed who wins in a RoWi, SitW, RoWa battle - if my Nids are fighting Eldar, and his psyker has RoWi but is also under SitW - which one takes effect? Or in Apocalypse if there's a RoWa and SitW covering the same unit - which one wins? Or if 2 Eldar are fighting - does RoWi beat RoWa or vice versa?
Unless you can satisfactorily answer those problems, your ruling causes more problems than it solves. Ethics or not, that would mean that you're wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
arch1angel wrote:what about the tyranid Shadows of the warp? that says add an extra dice....
SitW is worded slightly differently - in a way that it cannot stack. I don't have it in front of me at this second but it's essentially, "If a psyker is affected by Shadows in the Warp, he rolls an extra d6 for his psychic test. Any roll of double 1s or double 6s causes a Perils of the Warp."
Since multiple SitW covering a single model all satisfy "affected by Shadows in the Warp" you only roll a single extra d6.
arch1angel wrote:what about the tyranid Shadows of the warp? that says add an extra dice.
Actually no, it does not say to add an extra die.
I am not sure what RoWi does, but SitW says: "Any enemy psyker that takes a psychic test within 12" of a Tyranid with Shadow in the Warp special rule must take the test on 3D6..." so if RoWi adds an extra die then, since SitW forces a roll on 3D6 they work just fine together.
If you are playing teams and you are under the effects of RoW and SitW, then you roll on 4D6, but that is because SitW tells you to take the test on 3d6, and RoW adds an extra die to that roll.
arch1angel wrote:what about the tyranid Shadows of the warp? that says add an extra dice.
Actually no, it does not say to add an extra die.
Page 33 – Shadow in the Warp, second paragraph
Change to “Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid
with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an
extra dice when taking Psychic tests, and will suffer a
Perils of the Warp attack on the roll of any double 1 or
double 6.
arch1angel wrote:what about the tyranid Shadows of the warp? that says add an extra dice.
Actually no, it does not say to add an extra die.
I am not sure what RoWi does, but SitW says: "Any enemy psyker that takes a psychic test within 12" of a Tyranid with Shadow in the Warp special rule must take the test on 3D6..." so if RoWi adds an extra die then, since SitW forces a roll on 3D6 they work just fine together.
If you are playing teams and you are under the effects of RoW and SitW, then you roll on 4D6, but that is because SitW tells you to take the test on 3d6, and RoW adds an extra die to that roll.
Someone needs to read the Tyranid FAQ/Errata. You're wrong on what SitW says.
arch1angel wrote:what about the tyranid Shadows of the warp? that says add an extra dice.
Actually no, it does not say to add an extra die.
I am not sure what RoWi does, but SitW says: "Any enemy psyker that takes a psychic test within 12" of a Tyranid with Shadow in the Warp special rule must take the test on 3D6..." so if RoWi adds an extra die then, since SitW forces a roll on 3D6 they work just fine together.
If you are playing teams and you are under the effects of RoW and SitW, then you roll on 4D6, but that is because SitW tells you to take the test on 3d6, and RoW adds an extra die to that roll.
check the faq noob, it has been changed to add an extra dice too
<There are more polite ways to express yourself; please avail yourself of them, before something unfortunate happens to your posting privileges. --Janthkin>
arch1angel wrote:what about the tyranid Shadows of the warp? that says add an extra dice.
Actually no, it does not say to add an extra die.
I am not sure what RoWi does, but SitW says: "Any enemy psyker that takes a psychic test within 12" of a Tyranid with Shadow in the Warp special rule must take the test on 3D6..." so if RoWi adds an extra die then, since SitW forces a roll on 3D6 they work just fine together.
If you are playing teams and you are under the effects of RoW and SitW, then you roll on 4D6, but that is because SitW tells you to take the test on 3d6, and RoW adds an extra die to that roll.
check the faq noob, it has been changed to add an extra dice too
For the sake of everyone's sanity and for a calmer discussion, please can you avoid insulting other members? They might simply have missed that FAQ entry.
Yeah... I missed the newly updated FAQ... didn't realized that they updated it in Jan 2012...
It does say "add extra dice"... so... Adding 2nd farseer seems to make it a 4D6 test...
*sigh*... I guess I'm going to see a 2 farseer list in the future... since we're seeing a sh!t-ton of GK lately... which is okay by me since I play orks and DE!!
But guys... really... whats the diff between 3D6 and 4D6????
One farseer is enough to shut down the opponent's power! So, don't get too worked up about it! If an eldar play chooses to add the 2nd farseer... it aint an optional list!
I know, but we have been talking about changes to faqs and he doesnt bother to check his facts before posting, I have at least emailed gw asking about the runes of warding stacking, of course I'm not expecting a reply
also, rolling 3d6 is adding an extra dice, so by his own arguments the runes of witnessing would have been satisfied so it wouldn't be 4d6 it would be 3d6, he is contradicting himself and it is just starting to irritate me
EDIT: @whembly the difference between 3d6 and 4d6 is that 3d6 average is 10.5, whereas 4d6 average is 14, one on average will just be failing the tests the other being wounding the caster....also it makes it heaps harder to get off
whembly wrote:But guys... really... whats the diff between 3D6 and 4D6????
An average of 3.5.
3d6 means with just a little bit of luck, a LDR10 psyker can still expect to pass most of his tests. (average 10.5)
vs
4d6 means that a psyker has to get really lucky to pass any tests (average 14)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hukoseft wrote:I know, but we have been talking about changes to faqs and he doesnt bother to check his facts before posting, I have at least emailed gw asking about the runes of warding stacking, of course I'm not expecting a reply
also, rolling 3d6 is adding an extra dice, so by his own arguments the runes of witnessing would have been satisfied so it wouldn't be 4d6 it would be 3d6, he is contradicting himself and it is just starting to irritate me
Regardless of your irritation, discussions need to stay civil. If he hadn't read the Tyranid FAQ (or just forgot it was FAQed) he wouldn't be contradicting himself.
I wonder if he has me on ignore though, because I've posed that question multiple times.
Hukoseft wrote:I know, but we have been talking about changes to faqs and he doesnt bother to check his facts before posting, I have at least emailed gw asking about the runes of warding stacking, of course I'm not expecting a reply
also, rolling 3d6 is adding an extra dice, so by his own arguments the runes of witnessing would have been satisfied so it wouldn't be 4d6 it would be 3d6, he is contradicting himself and it is just starting to irritate me
EDIT: @whembly the difference between 3d6 and 4d6 is that 3d6 average is 10.5, whereas 4d6 average is 14, one on average will just be failing the tests the other being wounding the caster....also it makes it heaps harder to get off
LOL...
Maybe it's because I don't play psykers... but, it "seems" that everytime I see my bro bring just one farseer against 'Nids/BA/GK, his opponent either doesn't cast powers, or perils himself to death.
Anyhoo... I'll step out of this debate as it doesn't impact me much.
Hukoseft wrote:therefore if both runes of warding are in range (which they always are), why not "add an extra dice" because of farseer one, then "add an extra dice" for farseer two? nothing is telling you you can't whereas in those two examples both state they don't stack
Except the rules must say you can, as it is a permissive ruleset.
Nothing is telling you that you can't roll loaded dice either, but we know we can not because the rules do not allow us to use loaded dice.
Where in the rules are you allowed to stack those RoW?
DeathReaper wrote:Can you not see how it can be read this way?
No, because there is no basis for "extra". Extra means additional - if you get to that rule, add a die to the roll.
Another rule adding a die doesn't satisfy it because there's no implied or stated limit, unlike SitW.
If the rule was worded similar to SitW, or had even an implied limit of one d6 I'd agree with you.
I don't see either as being true.
As I mentioned earlier, your interpretation raises many more questions. Would you care to address them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DeathReaper wrote:Where in the rules are you allowed to stack those RoW?
RoWa say to roll an extra d6.
The onus is on you to deny the second (and more) d6's from being rolled. Simply saying one satisfies the other doesn't work because that's false.
in the rules which state ADD an EXTRA dice....it means you add as many extra dice for as many items which have this rule
in fact if you look at the tyranid rule it says any psyker within 12" of a tyranid with the rule must roll an extra dice, means either they are in range or not
whereas the runes of warding do not say anything of the sort, they just say enemy pskyers roll an extra nice when taking tests
so far all rules disallow the rule being multiplied, whereas this doesn't
think of the datasheet dark Olympiad for dark eldar, they get to roll twice on the combat drugs, if they were to get double 1s or 4s then the 2nd wouldn't have an effect, however if they got doubles for anything else they would stack
Hukoseft wrote:in the rules which state ADD an EXTRA dice....it means you add as many extra dice for as many items which have this rule
it means "add an extra die" as in one extra die. (not add an extra die for each RoW you have in the army, if they ment that they would have said that, or not, this is GW we are talking about).
rigeld2 wrote:RoWa say to roll an extra d6. The onus is on you to deny the second (and more) d6's from being rolled. Simply saying one satisfies the other doesn't work because that's false.
It is not false. The second D6 is only allowed to be rolled in one interpretation of RoW.
In the other, (and equally valid interpretation) one extra die fulfills the condition of roll an extra die, for all instances, because they all tell you to Roll an extra die, and if you roll 3D6 on a test where you normally roll 2d6 you are satisfying all conditions that say to Roll an extra die, because you are rolling an extra die. E.G. You must roll an extra die for Row #1, You must roll an extra die for Row #2 If you are rolling an extra die you simultaneously fulfill both questions of "are you rolling an extra die"
Avatar 720 wrote:Where in the rules are you allowed to stack Master Strategist? Nowhere, but GW have FAQ'd that they do.
Thus why I said Its ambiguous to say the least. If they FaQ it and say they stack then they do.
Until then, just like Master Strategist, it is unclear and we should take the least advantageous interpretation.
yes the runes of warding say roll an extra dice....so having two of them would cause them to roll an extra dice for each one
if person one says "here is an apple" then gives you an apple you have one apple, if person 2 says "here is an apple" and gives you an apple, you now have 2 apples correct? how is this principle any different?
Hukoseft wrote:in the rules which state ADD an EXTRA dice....it means you add as many extra dice for as many items which have this rule
in fact if you look at the tyranid rule it says any psyker within 12" of a tyranid with the rule must roll an extra dice, means either they are in range or not
whereas the runes of warding do not say anything of the sort, they just say enemy pskyers roll an extra nice when taking tests
so far all rules disallow the rule being multiplied, whereas this doesn't
think of the datasheet dark Olympiad for dark eldar, they get to roll twice on the combat drugs, if they were to get double 1s or 4s then the 2nd wouldn't have an effect, however if they got doubles for anything else they would stack
Actually the only difference between the wording of these rules is the range limitation. By your own logic if you meet the qualification of "within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule" three times over you'd have to roll three extra dice. Checked the rest of the FAQ, it does not say they don't stack.
Hukoseft wrote:in the rules which state ADD an EXTRA dice....it means you add as many extra dice for as many items which have this rule
in fact if you look at the tyranid rule it says any psyker within 12" of a tyranid with the rule must roll an extra dice, means either they are in range or not
whereas the runes of warding do not say anything of the sort, they just say enemy pskyers roll an extra nice when taking tests
so far all rules disallow the rule being multiplied, whereas this doesn't
think of the datasheet dark Olympiad for dark eldar, they get to roll twice on the combat drugs, if they were to get double 1s or 4s then the 2nd wouldn't have an effect, however if they got doubles for anything else they would stack
Actually the only difference between the wording of these rules is the range limitation. By your own logic if you meet the qualification of "within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule" three times over you'd have to roll three extra dice. Checked the rest of the FAQ, it does not say they don't stack.
yes it does....you are either in range of a tyranid with the rule or you are not, if you are then you roll an extra dice when taking tests, if you are not then you roll as normal
RoWd just states you roll an extra dice, so the question you need to ask is am I doing what this wargear is saying.....for 1 runes it would be 3d6 because you roll an extra dice for it, for 2 runes you roll an extra dice for this guy and then also roll an extra (seperate) dice because this other guy is telling me to, this adds up to 4d6....unless you have runes of witnessing yourself in which case it would be 5d6 REMOVING THE HIGHEST
Hukoseft wrote:yes the runes of warding say roll an extra dice....so having two of them would cause them to roll an extra dice for each one
if person one says "here is an apple" then gives you an apple you have one apple, if person 2 says "here is an apple" and gives you an apple, you now have 2 apples correct? how is this principle any different?
Because you are comparing giving something to someone to making someone perform an action.
A better analogy would be:
If the rule is that you get 3 strikes, and the away teams special rule says you add an extra strike to how many strikes you get, and the home teams rule says you add an extra strike to how many strikes you get, then the analogy is a similar situation to what we are discussing.
Hukoseft wrote:in the rules which state ADD an EXTRA dice....it means you add as many extra dice for as many items which have this rule
in fact if you look at the tyranid rule it says any psyker within 12" of a tyranid with the rule must roll an extra dice, means either they are in range or not
whereas the runes of warding do not say anything of the sort, they just say enemy pskyers roll an extra nice when taking tests
so far all rules disallow the rule being multiplied, whereas this doesn't
think of the datasheet dark Olympiad for dark eldar, they get to roll twice on the combat drugs, if they were to get double 1s or 4s then the 2nd wouldn't have an effect, however if they got doubles for anything else they would stack
Actually the only difference between the wording of these rules is the range limitation. By your own logic if you meet the qualification of "within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule" three times over you'd have to roll three extra dice. Checked the rest of the FAQ, it does not say they don't stack.
yes it does....you are either in range of a tyranid with the rule or you are not, if you are then you roll an extra dice when taking tests, if you are not then you roll as normal
RoWd just states you roll an extra dice, so the question you need to ask is am I doing what this wargear is saying.....for 1 runes it would be 3d6 because you roll an extra dice for it, for 2 runes you roll an extra dice for this guy and then also roll an extra (seperate) dice because this other guy is telling me to, this adds up to 4d6....unless you have runes of witnessing yourself in which case it would be 5d6 REMOVING THE HIGHEST
But you see that's the kind of logic your arguing against... you either role an extra d6 or you don't... after all, it doesn't clearly say '...for each RoW' just like it doesn't say '...for each tyranid'.
Hukoseft wrote:but this is a piece of wargear as opposed to an army rule
Yes and it carries and ability just like SITW is an ability some nids have.
The qulifications that allow the abilities to effect a model are
SitW - being an enemy psyker withing 12" of a Tyranid that has SitW RoW - being an enemy psyker
If you're going to say it does not matter how many nids with SitW are close to a model because it can only be an enemy psyker withing 12" of a Tyranid that has SitW once then it stands to reason it does not matter how many RoW are in play on the other side as the model can only be an enemy psyker once.
IMO This sounds broken so I'd have to agree with you on the RoW but disagree on the SitW. If one stacks the other should as well.
DeathReaper wrote:
You must roll an extra die for Row #1, You must roll an extra die for Row #2
If you are rolling an extra die you simultaneously fulfill both questions of "are you rolling an extra die"
No, you haven't.
You must roll an extra die. There is nothing that tells you what to reference as "base".
You still haven't addressed which ability wins if there are multiple on the table.
With your interpretation, if both abilities are present one must win. There's not basis for that.
With your interpretation, you must select one of them to win. I'd love to hear what rules basis you have to resolve that selection.
If you continue to not answer that, you're essentially admitting you're wrong. It's not an equally valid interpretation.
rigeld2 wrote:Again, you're ignoring the fact that you've also satisfied RoWi and SitW - and you have no basis for doing so.
You also are ignoring the fact that you're making an assumption that the default roll is 2d6. If a psyker in a future codex has to roll an extra die for psychic tests, does he get to ignore SitW and RoWa? Your ruling seems to be yes.
The default IS 2D6, check P.50 Psychic test, and Leadership test Page 8 It states Psychic Checks are normal LD tests. A normal LD test is taken on 2D6, thus it being the default.
rigeld2 wrote:You also still haven't addressed who wins in a RoWi, SitW, RoWa battle - if my Nids are fighting Eldar, and his psyker has RoWi but is also under SitW - which one takes effect? Or in Apocalypse if there's a RoWa and SitW covering the same unit - which one wins? Or if 2 Eldar are fighting - does RoWi beat RoWa or vice versa?
I do not know what RoWi does, so I can not address this.
Page 26 – Runes of Witnessing
Change the last two sentences to “A Farseer with runes
of witnessing must roll an extra dice when taking
Psychic tests and discards the highest result.
All three abilities say to roll an extra dice. If I roll 3d6, according to you, I have met all the requirements to roll an extra dice. However, I have not met the requirements, I should be rolling between 3d6 and 5d6 (possibly 6d6 depending on what type of game is being played).
So if you Roll an extra die, you have fulfilled all rules that say to Roll an extra die.
A Psychic test is rolled on 2D6 (P.50 & P.8)
When rolling a Psychic test, if you roll 3d6 you are abiding by the "Roll an extra die" rule no matter how many times there are rules that say to "Roll an extra die" you ARE Roll an extra die on your Psychic check when you roll 3d6
This is because when you ask the question for each "Roll an extra die" rule you ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) then you move to the second instance of the rule , and ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) etc.
It is ambiguous and neither interpretation is incorrect.
DeathReaper wrote:They each say to "Roll an extra die"
So if you Roll an extra die, you have fulfilled all rules that say to Roll an extra die.
A Psychic test is rolled on 2D6 (P.50 & P.8)
When rolling a Psychic test, if you roll 3d6 you are abiding by the "Roll an extra die" rule no matter how many times there are rules that say to "Roll an extra die" you ARE Roll an extra die on your Psychic check when you roll 3d6
This is because when you ask the question for each "Roll an extra die" rule you ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) then you move to the second instance of the rule , and ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) etc.
It is ambiguous and neither interpretation is incorrect.
You only think it's ambiguous because you think it is. I don't see any ambiguity at all.
Check rule one - it says to roll an extra die. Add a d6 to the pool.
Check rule two - it says to roll an extra die. Add a d6 to the pool.
And if a psyker in a future codex adds an extra die when he takes psychic tests?
You're asserting that any psyker under all 3 effects becomes immune to RoWa and SitW.
edit: Roll to hit. I roll one die. Next weapon - I've already rolled to hit. That's satisfied. Next weapon...
DeathReaper wrote:LD tests specifically tell you to roll 2D6 (BRB 8), I am not sure what you are referring to.
Pinning tests specifically. With your interpretation, I'd only roll for the first test, and automatically fail/pass any more.
That's not how the rules read, however.
Or multiple MSS on the same model - I've rolled and passed the first one. With your interpretation I don't need to roll any further.
Hukoseft wrote:yes the runes of warding say roll an extra dice....so having two of them would cause them to roll an extra dice for each one
if person one says "here is an apple" then gives you an apple you have one apple, if person 2 says "here is an apple" and gives you an apple, you now have 2 apples correct? how is this principle any different?
Actually, you can also say it like this:
If person A says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A" and person B says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A", you can either get 1 extra apple or 2 extra apples, depending on whether they meant the same "extra apple" or if hey meant 2 separate "extra apples".
Hukoseft wrote:yes the runes of warding say roll an extra dice....so having two of them would cause them to roll an extra dice for each one
if person one says "here is an apple" then gives you an apple you have one apple, if person 2 says "here is an apple" and gives you an apple, you now have 2 apples correct? how is this principle any different?
Actually, you can also say it like this:
If person A says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A" and person B says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A", you can either get 1 extra apple or 2 extra apples, depending on whether they meant the same "extra apple" or if hey meant 2 separate "extra apples".
well its 2 separate pieces of wargear, you are getting one extra apple from each person
@Happyjew I hope you were being sarcastic
this has become circular arguments because people don't listen to logic
DeathReaper wrote:Pinning says specifically that they may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn.
Right, just like a psyker is called upon to add extra dice multiple times.
Page reference where it says specifically about the Psychic tests?
You mean about the extra dice? The RoWa page and rules have been posted multiple times in the thread.
Multiple wargear items require the extra die.
Multiple weapons cause a Pinning test.
Your assertion is that adding one extra die satisfies all of them.
rigeld2 wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:It explicitly says that you must take multiple pinning tests. (Something explicitly missing from RoW)
And all of those tests are satisfied by making the first one.
Why are you drawing line here? It seems arbitrary.
care to explain how pinning is satisfied by the first test?
It says "As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn" (BRB P.31)
This is an explicit confirmation that you must take more than one pinning test.
I am taking the extra pinning test - it's just that the first roll satisfies the requirement.
I'm using your interpretation (that doing X can satisfy the requirement to do X from a different source) to show that passing a Pinning test will allow you to pass all other Pinning tests that turn (not that you put a limit on it, but I'll give you that you're not trying to be THAT outlandish).
I'm sure there are other examples where this causes issues, but I don't have time to investigate much farther right now.
The pinning stuff is not the same, no adding going on there.
To fulfill the condition of "Roll an extra Die" you would roll an extra die.
If there are five rules that say "Roll an extra Die" then if you Roll an extra die, you have satisfied all five rules, since you are rolling an extra die.
But as I said before I can see how both interpretations are not incorrect.
The rules for Master Strategist do not mention stacking, and GW made an FAQ'd to allow them to stack. This is the same situation. It is an ambiguous rule and can be read two different ways.
BRB says that the model gets an "extra" +1 attack from having two single-handed weapons. Does this not stack with the extra attack from mandiblasters? (Two pieces of wargear giving the same benefit)
Edit: Mark of Nurgle and a Bike both add +1 toughness. Do they not stack?
DeathReaper wrote:The pinning stuff is not the same, no adding going on there.
To fulfill the condition of "Roll an extra Die" you would roll an extra die.
If there are five rules that say "Roll an extra Die" then if you Roll an extra die, you have satisfied all five rules, since you are rolling an extra die.
But as I said before I can see how both interpretations are not incorrect.
The rules for Master Strategist do not mention stacking, and GW made an FAQ'd to allow them to stack. This is the same situation. It is an ambiguous rule and can be read two different ways.
There's nothing strictly illogical about the idea that once you have reached the state of rolling an extra die you are fulfilling the requirement no matter how many times it is asked. To infer this however, would require more words than they put in the desription. It seems clear they intend to allow all these abilities to stack since there would be no other reason to change their wording from '3d6' to 'an extra die'.
You are arguing a logical view but it has no support in the wording of these abilities and is opposed by the obvious intent of the errata
culsandar wrote:BRB says that the model gets an "extra" +1 attack from having two single-handed weapons. Does this not stack with the extra attack from mandiblasters? (Two pieces of wargear giving the same benefit)
Edit: Mark of Nurgle and a Bike both add +1 toughness. Do they not stack?
Very well said! I was looking for other examples where things add something and everyone assumes they stack.
DeathReaper wrote:Play it how you want, but the ethical choice is to take the least advantageous of the two interpretations.
Some people seem to be getting blinded by the in game effect. If you just read the RAW, and lets say it was something minor, you would have no trouble understanding.
1 guy gives you an extra die. 2nd guy gives you an extra die. There is no ambiguity here. You get two extra dice.
The whole argument against seems to be based on "Woah that's powerful, are you sure?". Instead, lets apply the counter argument to wound allocation. You can spread out wounds within a unit of the same model type just by choosing 1 piece of different wargear on each? "Woah that's powerful, are you sure?"
but those say "+1 " not add extra dice, there is a sublte diffrence....
I would like to see them stack, Tyrinids is one of my favoret army, and I usualy run many things with shadows of the warp,
but i dont think 2 of the same thing stacks... just my 2c,
no real argument either way, just stating what i currently think,
arch1angel wrote:but those say "+1 " not add extra dice, there is a sublte diffrence....
I would like to see them stack, Tyrinids is one of my favoret army, and I usualy run many things with shadows of the warp,
but i dont think 2 of the same thing stacks... just my 2c,
no real argument either way, just stating what i currently think,
SitW does not stack with itself.
RoWa does.
RoWi stacks with either of the other two. (since you can't be affected by your own RoWi twice that I know of)
Nemesor Dave wrote:1 guy gives you an extra die. 2nd guy gives you an extra die. There is no ambiguity here. You get two extra dice.
That is currently being debated, If some people see it one way, and some people see it the other way, then there must be ambiguity.
Nemesor Dave wrote:The whole argument against seems to be based on "Woah that's powerful, are you sure?"
I did not ever say that, Something being "powerful" has no bearing on my take on the rules.
rigeld2 wrote:SitW does not stack with itself.
RoWa does.
RoWi stacks with either of the other two. (since you can't be affected by your own RoWi twice that I know of)
If "RoWa does" then "SitW" has to as well, as they both say the same thing.
I can see how it can be read both ways, thus the ambiguity.
rigeld2 wrote:SitW does not stack with itself.
RoWa does.
RoWi stacks with either of the other two. (since you can't be affected by your own RoWi twice that I know of)
If "RoWa does" then "SitW" has to as well, as they both say the same thing.
I can see how it can be read both ways, thus the ambiguity.
They do not both say the same thing.
SitW says: "Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
RoWa says: "All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
SitW is a check based on the psyker. Being in range of multiple SitW fulfills the requirement, so a single D6 is added.
RoWa is a check based on the wargear existing. So, each copy of it adds another die.
DeathReaper wrote:If some people see it one way, and some people see it the other way, then there must be ambiguity.
If they're forcing ambiguity for no reason, there's no real ambiguity. I cannot see any rules basis in your "satisfies" argument, and I you have yet to provide any that I've seen. Did I miss it?
If "RoWa does" then "SitW" has to as well, as they both say the same thing.
They aren't even close, but thanks for trying.
I can see how it can be read both ways, thus the ambiguity.
I think you're forcing the second read, meaning it's invalid, meaning it's not ambiguous.
rigeld2 wrote:If they're forcing ambiguity for no reason, there's no real ambiguity. I cannot see any rules basis in your "satisfies" argument, and I you have yet to provide any that I've seen. Did I miss it?
No, you have heard it before.
If you are asked to roll an extra die, and there are three instances of that rule, then rolling AN extra die fulfills the requirement of all three rules, since they simply say to "Roll an extra die" and that is what you are doing.
rigeld2 wrote:They aren't even close, but thanks for trying.
SITW are very close, they both make you roll an extra die, so if you are within 2 tyranids with SITW why make the arbitrary distinction between them?
No forcing of a read, Only performing the required action.
The action is asked in 2 different rules, I take the action and fulfill both rules, because they both ask me to take that action.
Once I have taken that action, I have fulfilled both rules saying I have to take that action.
rigeld2 wrote:If they're forcing ambiguity for no reason, there's no real ambiguity. I cannot see any rules basis in your "satisfies" argument, and I you have yet to provide any that I've seen. Did I miss it?
No, you have heard it before.
If you are asked to roll an extra die, and there are three instances of that rule, then rolling AN extra die fulfills the requirement of all three rules, since they simply say to "Roll an extra die" and that is what you are doing.
And what rule is allowing you to make that assertion?
rigeld2 wrote:They aren't even close, but thanks for trying.
SITW are very close, they both make you roll an extra die, so if you are within 2 tyranids with SITW why make the arbitrary distinction between them?
"Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp"
You have 7 warriors in CC with you.
Do you have a Tyranid with SitW within 12"? Add an extra dice.
37 Tyranids with SitW or 1 - the answer is "yes" to the question.
I see your point and concede ambiguity. I still disagree on the "ethical" thing to do.
DR, I noticed you never responded to my post, about the changing of the wording. All three abilities originally stated "Roll 3d6". Now all 3 abilities state "Roll an additional D6". If the y were not meant to be able to stack, why would GW change the wording?
Happyjew wrote:DR, I noticed you never responded to my post, about the changing of the wording. All three abilities originally stated "Roll 3d6". Now all 3 abilities state "Roll an additional D6". If the y were not meant to be able to stack, why would GW change the wording?
culsandar wrote:BRB says that the model gets an "extra" +1 attack from having two single-handed weapons. Does this not stack with the extra attack from mandiblasters? (Two pieces of wargear giving the same benefit)
Edit: Mark of Nurgle and a Bike both add +1 toughness. Do they not stack?
Basically this.
arch1angel wrote:but those say "+1 " not add extra dice, there is a sublte diffrence....
I don't see the difference. If there is one, care to explain what wording (and why) allows stacking:
Unit gains +1 extra attack.
Unit gains an attack.
Unit gains an extra attack.
Unit gains +1d6 extra attacks.
Unit gains d6 attacks.
etc etc..
Happyjew wrote:DR, I noticed you never responded to my post, about the changing of the wording. All three abilities originally stated "Roll 3d6". Now all 3 abilities state "Roll an additional D6". If the y were not meant to be able to stack, why would GW change the wording?
That was done to prevent conflict with RoW
There was no conflict. The previous FAQ clarified how RoWa and RoWi worked against each other.
Happyjew wrote:DR, I noticed you never responded to my post, about the changing of the wording. All three abilities originally stated "Roll 3d6". Now all 3 abilities state "Roll an additional D6". If the y were not meant to be able to stack, why would GW change the wording?
That was done to prevent conflict with RoW
There was no conflict. The previous FAQ clarified how RoWa and RoWi worked against each other.
The previous FAQ just said "They cancel each other out" for no logical reason.
The current re-wording is much clearer, more logical, interacts with other powers better, and they now test on 4d6 and you discard the highest die.
It doesn't eliminate the fact that, however baseless the answer was, RoWa vs RoWi wasn't an issue before this errata, therefore arguing that it was done to prevent conflict isn't really a satisfactory answer since there was really no conflict there to prevent.
Grakmar, RoWa and RoWi did NOT cancel each other out, the wording was very clear,
1. roll 3d6 2. If the total is 12+ (or if the 2 lowest dice are double 1's/double 6's) suffer a PotW.
3. Drop the highest die to determine if the psychic test passes or not.
Before the Tyranid update, RoWi and SitW cancelled each other out. After the update, however, you had 2 groups. one (nos' group) said roll 4d6, drop the highest (as it was errata'd to be) and the other (my group) said to roll 3d6, if you have any double 1's or 6's suffer PitW, then drop hte highest die to determine if the test is passed.
My wife is pregnant (psychic test) and must have 2 apples (roll 2d6). I go to the store and the greeter (farseer #1) informs me that all husbands buying apples for pregnant wives (taking psychic tests) must buy an extra apple (roll an extra d6). I go to the apple isle and an employee (farseer #2) informs me that all husbands buying apples for pregnant wives must buy an extra apple, so I take 3 apples (3d6, one extra d6) since I came for 2 apples and must take an extra apple. The employee smiles (farseer #2 is satisfied) because I satisfied the requirement for an extra apple. On the way out, the greeter asked me if I purchased an extra apple, and is also satisfied that I did (farseer #1 is satisfied).
3 apples, 3d6. Even though two different employees required me to take an extra apple if I was buying apples. The requirement was not an extra apple for each employee. RoW doesn't state an extra d6 for each RoW and that's important. That's where the "satisfied requirement" argument is coming from.
The reasoning behind changing the wording in the errata doesn't matter. They changed it, but never added "for each RoW, add d6". Therefore, rolling 3d6 satisfies the requirement to "add a d6" (IMO), regardless of the presence of 2 farseers or 10 farseers (in APOC).
Stacking wargear doesn't matter either. You can't take 2 marks of nurgle or 2 bikes on the same character so you can't compare it to 2 RoW's.
nos, I wasn't saying you were wrong, as it turns out they changed it so you are correct. I agreed fully, that the ruling on the two things cancelling each other out was no longer viable, as the wording for 1 ability had changed. My point was there were two different ways of looking at the conflict, and both were viable options.
You can try Hukoseft, but I doubt your professor can solve this as it is not a mathematical issue but more a linguistical one.
Since the rule for RoWa says:
“All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”
You fullfill that requirement independent on the amount of times that rule would trigger.
You can make a simple logic sequence:
Cause 1: You are in range of Farseer A with RoWa (roll an extra D6).
Effect: Roll 2D6 + an extra D6 = requirement fullfilled as cause 1 can be answered with true
Cause1: You are in range of Farseer A with RoWa (roll an extra D6).
Cause2: You are in range of Farseer B with RoWa (roll an extra D6).
Effect: Roll 2D6 + an extra D6 = requirement fullfilled as cause 1 and 2 can be answered with true
Happyjew wrote:DR, I noticed you never responded to my post, about the changing of the wording. All three abilities originally stated "Roll 3d6". Now all 3 abilities state "Roll an additional D6". If the y were not meant to be able to stack, why would GW change the wording?
If you are asking me to read the minds of the rules makers at GW, then you are out of luck, my superpowers have not manifested yet.
@Hukoseft the following says it as I would have said it.
DutchSage wrote:Since the rule for RoWa says:
“All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”
You fulfill that requirement independent on the amount of times that rule would trigger.
You can make a simple logic sequence:
Cause 1: You are in range of Farseer A with RoWa (roll an extra D6). Effect: Roll 2D6 + an extra D6 = requirement fulfilled as cause 1 can be answered with true
Cause1: You are in range of Farseer A with RoWa (roll an extra D6). Cause2: You are in range of Farseer B with RoWa (roll an extra D6). Effect: Roll 2D6 + an extra D6 = requirement fulfilled as cause 1 and 2 can be answered with true
Both of those cause/effects are not incorrect. That is why it is ambiguous.
My wishlist for 6th ed. is wording and hopefully Consistancy that clears up stacking issues. Unfortunatly I don't think we'll be getting anymore FAQ's untill after its released.
My wife is pregnant (psychic test) and must have 2 apples (roll 2d6). I go to the store and the greeter (farseer #1) informs me that all husbands buying apples for pregnant wives (taking psychic tests) must buy an extra apple (roll an extra d6). I go to the apple isle and an employee (farseer #2) informs me that all husbands buying apples for pregnant wives must buy an extra apple, so I take 3 apples (3d6, one extra d6) since I came for 2 apples and must take an extra apple. The employee smiles (farseer #2 is satisfied) because I satisfied the requirement for an extra apple. On the way out, the greeter asked me if I purchased an extra apple, and is also satisfied that I did (farseer #1 is satisfied).
3 apples, 3d6. Even though two different employees required me to take an extra apple if I was buying apples. The requirement was not an extra apple for each employee. RoW doesn't state an extra d6 for each RoW and that's important. That's where the "satisfied requirement" argument is coming from.
The reasoning behind changing the wording in the errata doesn't matter. They changed it, but never added "for each RoW, add d6". Therefore, rolling 3d6 satisfies the requirement to "add a d6" (IMO), regardless of the presence of 2 farseers or 10 farseers (in APOC).
Stacking wargear doesn't matter either. You can't take 2 marks of nurgle or 2 bikes on the same character so you can't compare it to 2 RoW's.
so thats one husband buying an extra apple, if it were a polygamist relationship and there were two husbands that went to buy the apples, they would buy 2 extra apples
you are just trying to fit your argument into your statement but you're doing it incorrectly
@DutchSage umm no it is a logic statement, if I am told to do something from one source is it fulfilled if I am told to do it again from a different source
think of the two farseers as independant, what one does has no impact on what the other does(ie each farseer has a rule which makes the psyker roll an extra dice)
EDIT: I am still waiting for EVIDENCE to support your side, there is plenty of evidence to support 'stacking'
If 12 things tell me to roll an extra die, and normally I roll 2d6, then rolling 3d6 IS rolling an extra die, and fulfills all things that say to roll an extra die, since I am rolling an extra die.
Had it said "roll an extra die for each rune of warding" then my reading would be incorrect.
As it stands both readings are not incorrect.
But if you can not understand that explanation then I am incapable of explaining it to you.
Since we've been around in several circles, and i'm afraid that if we keep going around in them, we'll eventually wear the forum out so much that we'll cut a giant hole into the internet and fall through, is it safe to say that it's far too ambiguous for anyone but GW to decided on, and that you should choose the least advantageous option/roll a D6/ask your TO/shrug and decide that it's okay because it doesn't affect you anyway, and get a mod to lock?
There's only so many times DR can repeat himself ("As it stands both readings are not incorrect.") without bludgeoning people to death, and there's only so many bad scenarios people can use to try and demonstrate their argument; i'm all for calling it a day, because I highly doubt we're going to get anywhere.
◊ELD.26D.01 – Q: Are multiple instances of Runes of
Warding in the same Eldar army cumulative with
each other (meaning opposing psykers take their
psychic tests using 4D6)?
A: No, multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same
army still only add a single extra D6 to enemy psychic tests
[clarification].
It's been brought up. That ruling was made before the change to the faq, when it used to just be 3d6.
I thought about that for a minute, but it doesn't seem to be the case. You sure? Read what it says:
◊ELD.26D.01 – Q: Are multiple instances of Runes of
Warding in the same Eldar army cumulative with
each other (meaning opposing psykers take their
psychic tests using 4D6)?
A: No, multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same
army still only add a single extra D6 to enemy psychic tests
[clarification].
Pay particular attention to the underlined stuff. If the rule were 3d6 at the time of the ruling why would people wonder if they should roll 4d6 if there were two instances of runes of warding? Why the mention of "only add a single extra d6" in the answer?
Furthermore, the ruling that I quoted is from "INATFAQv5.1.pdf" and on the INATFAQ page, it says:
INATFAQv5.1 (released 02/23/2012)
What's New in v5.1?
Covers the new Necrons & Sisters of Battle (White Dwarf) codexes.
Takes GW's official FAQ updates (Feb 2012) into account. As always, a random smattering of new questions added.
(again, look at the underlined bit)
..seems to claim that FAQs Feb 2012 and prior were taken into consideration.
I was looking for related cases, and found this. Not directly related, I suppose, but shows how even when "extra" isn't a given word in the description, things can get weird with cumulative effects in 40k.
Grakmar wrote:
They do not both say the same thing.
SitW says: "Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
RoWa says: "All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
SitW is a check based on the psyker. Being in range of multiple SitW fulfills the requirement, so a single D6 is added.
RoWa is a check based on the wargear existing. So, each copy of it adds another die.
There is no ambiguity just loss of perspective here.
SitW is activated by being within 12" of "a Tyranid". That means any Tyranid with SitW. If it said "each Tyranid" then you would get +1D6 for every Tyranid in range and this effect would stack. Special rules are only test for once. Stealth does not give +1 cover save to the unit for each model in the unit with stealth.
RoWa is caused by wargear on the model with RoWa. Two models cause the rule to be activated twice. Wargear effects are caused individually by each piece of wargear. Each model with a powerfist benefits separately from its wargear.
We need to find another piece of wargear that grants/affects another model like RoW does. Then we can examine the wording and see what matches or doesn't.
I'm at work so someone else should.
Maybe something that gives a unit an extra attack, or an extra something? Preferably something that uses the word "extra" rather than +1.
If there is a precedent for wargear stacking, I think we could push this one into the open.
There is ambiguity because they chose the words "an extra" and didn't use "+1". Though "an extra" is grammatically correct.
The point never has (and never will be) to create some sort of world domination where every event has to use our rulings. The reason the INAT is named the INAT is because I want everyone to know that this isn’t a FAQ created specifically for one event only, but rather something that is worked on and updated on a year-round basis and will work for just about any type of 40K tournament that chooses to use it as a comprehensive set of clarifications for their players and judges.
Just thought I'd point out that there is a ruling for this issue in the FAQ. Rather than argue bitterly (or debate politely) over issues that are not addressed in an official source, I personally choose to go with the INAT ruling. You can choose to abide by the ruling or not; completely up to you.
racta wrote:We need to find another piece of wargear that grants/affects another model like RoW does. Then we can examine the wording and see what matches or doesn't.
I'm at work so someone else should.
Maybe something that gives a unit an extra attack, or an extra something? Preferably something that uses the word "extra" rather than +1.
If there is a precedent for wargear stacking, I think we could push this one into the open.
There is ambiguity because they chose the words "an extra" and didn't use "+1". Though "an extra" is grammatically correct.
Pheonix Lord and dire avenger exarch defend power .. eldar codex pg 30 & 54... Models lose one attack that are directing their attacks toward the unit, but it specificly states that the powers are not cumulative.
rigeld2 wrote:Whatever you say boss.
It'd be great if you could offer a rules argument as to why it's not 4d6.
As was mentioned earlier, there is precedence in the same codex for things not to stack.
As was also mentioned earlier, by other posters, that, 3d6 would still fulfill both "extra die" requirements. It's easy to read it that way, and all it would do is lead to a rules argument. Also, the INAT rules in favour of it not stacking, even though it's not an official source.
Also, since your gear makes you the action taker, it's more ethical to read it to the least advantageous.
So, it would be being "TFG" to try to force the 4D6 way.
Also, this is all pointless, since, who takes two Farseers over a Farseer/Autarch? Really?
There's precedence for wargear to have to state that it doesn't stack. Just saying.
And if no one does it, what's so TFG about it? It's not like it's impossible to get a psychic power off. I bet (tho I haven't run numbers) it's as effective as all the SW psyker defense, and maybe hoods as well.
racta wrote:We need to find another piece of wargear that grants/affects another model like RoW does. Then we can examine the wording and see what matches or doesn't.
I'm at work so someone else should.
Maybe something that gives a unit an extra attack, or an extra something? Preferably something that uses the word "extra" rather than +1.
If there is a precedent for wargear stacking, I think we could push this one into the open.
There is ambiguity because they chose the words "an extra" and didn't use "+1". Though "an extra" is grammatically correct.
Pheonix Lord and dire avenger exarch defend power .. eldar codex pg 30 & 54... Models lose one attack that are directing their attacks toward the unit, but it specificly states that the powers are not cumulative.
But this is a precedent for not stacking.. sorry
This creates a precedent that for wargear powers not to stack the rule must state they don't stack as an exception.
Nemesor Dave wrote:
It's a permissive rules set. It says "add an extra dice" and then again "add an extra dice".
When you say, "it says", what is "it"? If your reply is "rules set", please list the book and page and be sure that I'll find, '"add an extra dice" and then again "add an extra dice"' there.
I just want to point out that Defend, is not a piece of Wargear. It's a special ability, similar to Stealth USR. Otherwise, how do you Eldar players model it on your Exarchs, for WYSIWYG, after all, wargear must e represented.
I don't play elder but a shiny stone that's been painted looks good to me. Lol. Pretty sure the models all have shiny bits. On the stacking thing I would be sad if I ever used my weird boy and this happened lol. Otherwise Meh lol.
racta wrote:We need to find another piece of wargear that grants/affects another model like RoW does. Then we can examine the wording and see what matches or doesn't.
I'm at work so someone else should.
Maybe something that gives a unit an extra attack, or an extra something? Preferably something that uses the word "extra" rather than +1.
If there is a precedent for wargear stacking, I think we could push this one into the open.
There is ambiguity because they chose the words "an extra" and didn't use "+1". Though "an extra" is grammatically correct.
Pheonix Lord and dire avenger exarch defend power .. eldar codex pg 30 & 54... Models lose one attack that are directing their attacks toward the unit, but it specificly states that the powers are not cumulative.
But this is a precedent for not stacking.. sorry
This creates a precedent that for wargear powers not to stack the rule must state they don't stack as an exception.
Lol... I think were going to have to fall back on GWs most important rule and roll a d6 on this one boys.... Does any one know if these dice might perhaps stack somehow.. ??
But all 3 rules say "add an extra die". If RoWa don't stack, then SiTW/RoWi and RoWi/RoWa don't stack. And GW made a change in wording that did absolutely nothing.
So I read it as saying that each one can add one. [editing in: e.g. each rule can add a die] FAQs often change nothing. That is sort of the point most of the time. See: Warp time.
Happyjew wrote:It wasn't FAQ'd. It was Errata'd. Big difference. FAQ's clarify (and occasionally change how a rule works). Errata completely changes the rule.
Literally true, but in the case of GW it is not always the case. Which is why I read it that way.
editing to add: Errata actually suggests that the text is changing. It does not mean the rules the text regard need to be changed.
Excellent debate here. I can see both sides of the argument though I think there's only one clear winner. A few things first:
People need to keep in mind that the FAQ updates are two different things. They are both Eratta updates and FAQ updates. The difference is important.Eratta is a change to the rules, while a FAQ is just an interpretation of the rules. From reading the entire thread, there is a smidge of confusion by some people there.
My argument:
Page 36 – Runic Weapon,
Replace the fourth sentence with “Furthermore,
whenever an enemy model succeeds on a Psychic test
within 24" of one or more models with a Runic
Weapon, roll a dice […]”.
The Space Wolf Codex originally stated: "Furthermore, whenever an enemy model succeeds on a Psychic test within 24" of the bearer, roll a dice - on the roll of a 4+ that power is nullified."
They had to change it in the Eratta update so that if you had two (or more) Rune Priests, both within 24" of an enemy psyker, you only take the one test for nullification. This was not a stacking of powers. This was two instances of a wargear ability being triggered by one enemy action. That is why it required the Eratta update, rather than just an FAQ clarification. RAW, it did allow multiple attempts to nullify.
Avatar 720 wrote:
Page 26 – Runes of Warding
Change the last sentence to “All enemy Psykers must
roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering
Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above.”
So you have two Farseers, each with Runes of Warding. That's two unique instances of the same wargear. Without a specific exclusion, they both get triggered (RAW). That's how it was working for the Rune Priests, pre-Eratta, so why would it not work that way now? The core rules haven't changed and a specific exclusion was required for the Rune Priests.
These wargear items themselves are comparable. The Runic Weapon has a range of 24" while the Runes of Warding have an unlimited range. One allows a player to roll a dice while the other forces the other player to roll more dice. But they are both Wargear items on Independant Characters.
Without a specific exclusion, such as what was added to the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon entry, they both get triggered independently. Their effect has been changed, but the way they trigger has not.
Avatar 720 wrote:
Page 26 – Runes of Witnessing
Change the last two sentences to “A Farseer with runes
of witnessing must roll an extra dice when taking
Psychic tests and discards the highest result.
Runes of Witnessing is a unique piece of wargear, so regardless of whether or not you are buying the above argument this would stack with Runes of Warding and with Shadow in the Warp. They're completely different sources that just affect the same thing, so keep adding dice and following the rest of their abilities.
Avatar 720 wrote:
Page 33 – Shadow in the Warp, second paragraph
Change to “Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid
with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an
extra dice when taking Psychic tests, and will suffer a
Perils of the Warp attack on the roll of any double 1 or
double 6.
This is a Special Rule rather than Wargear, but they work the same mechanically. The rule does not specify "one or more Tyranids" such as the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon does. I would say that having more than one Tyranid with this special rule in range of an enemy psyker would mean he's rolling on more than 3D6. This one is far from as cruel as the Runes of Warding.
Let's be clear, these are very strong advantages to these armies. I do not think its broken however, and honestly its more inline with the fluff. Eldar are supposed to be the kings of Psykers and they kind of suck compared to some Space Marines. The Shadow in the Warp is supposed to make a psyker's head explode.
Given the one requires an inefficent point investment (and unnecssary, 3D6 with perils on a total of 12 is enough to shut down my psykers) and the other has a short range, I just don't think its that big of a deal. And I rely on my Rune Priests. But at the same time, both Codexes tend to be weaker than comparable 5th edition Codexes so I don't think its unreasonable and would allow it against me.
I don't play Apocalypse, but this is Warhammer 40,000. Apocalypse is not the core rules, its a supplement, so it will have problems on occasion regardless.
No one but GW can speak to their intentions and it will likely be another year or more before we get another FAQ update to clarify it. But that's my two cents. I just don't agree with INAT's ruling and think its not fair to punish Tyranid and Eldar players who can't out and out nullify powers like other races can.
No, actually it isnt. While that is a nice THEORY, it has not played out, ever, in practice.
SitW did, then did not, get blocked by the psyker being embarked on a transport. This was a FAQ answer, and by definition MUST have changed the rules at some poiint - initially or with the change to the answer.
No it isn't. It is a change to the text. Even without a dictionary:
Games Workshop wrote:The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!).
nosferatu1001 wrote:"The difference is important."
No, actually it isnt. While that is a nice THEORY, it has not played out, ever, in practice.
SitW did, then did not, get blocked by the psyker being embarked on a transport. This was a FAQ answer, and by definition MUST have changed the rules at some poiint - initially or with the change to the answer.
kirsanth wrote:
cowmonaut wrote: Eratta is a change to the rules
No it isn't. It is a change to the text. Even without a dictionary:
Games Workshop wrote:The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!).
@ kirsanth: You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong:
Each army has a Codex - its own dedicated book, which contains in-depth background details and complete rules for all the models in the force, along with their weapons and wargear.
Source: Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook viii: Building An Army
Emphasis is mine. If you change the text describing how a piece of wargear works, you changed the rules for that piece of wargear. That is an irrefutable fact.
@ nosferatu1001: Given all the other FAQ changes relating to psykers in vehicles I would rather say that they have decided that models in a transport count as being in the transport for abilities that would affect things like psykers and psychic powers. Its more a "where does this model exist in-game" type thing. They didn't feel they had to re-write any rules for this apparently and just clarified it in the FAQ.
So I stand by my argument that Eldar and Tyranid players have a really nasty psychic defense as the rules currently stand, due to the way the rules for their respective abilities are written. The specific arguments for each ability are in my previous post. I eagerly await a rebuttle to both of those arguments rather than trying to create a distraction to that and argue the semantics of the word "Eratta", incorrectly.
cowmonaut wrote:@ kirsanth: You are wrong. Here is why you are wrong:
Each army has a Codex - its own dedicated book, which contains in-depth background details and complete rules for all the models in the force, along with their weapons and wargear.
Source: Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook viii: Building An Army
If you change the text describing how a piece of wargear works, you changed the rules for that piece of wargear. That is an irrefutable fact.
You are wrong.
This issue is potentially an example why.
'Errata' does not mean the rules/rulings are changed, only the words used to describe them. The interpretation I posited earlier exemplifies this.
editing to add an example: Changing "Don't" to "Do not" requires errata, but does not change any rule. Changing "see page 55" to "see page 45" also requires errata without changing rules. Heck, even adding "see page 2" is errata.
How can you say I'm wrong about this? And where did you get that quote about what 'Errata' is? The FAQ updates themselves don't say that. All three say:
Each update is split into three sections: Errata,
Amendments, and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The
Errata corrects any mistakes in the codex, while the
Amendments bring the codex up to date with the latest
version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions
(or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions
about the rules. Although you can mark corrections
directly in your codex, this is by no means necessary –
just keep a copy of the update with your codex.
I have to be honest: Are you trolling? If you change the text of a rule, you change the rule. The Errata changes themselves even say to replace the pre-existing text. You see this in the BRBFAQ update as well as Codex specific updates.
You are being incredibly dishonest by saying the rules don't change due to the Errata.
Edit: While your example of "don't" to "do not" is a case where the rules didn't change due to Errata, there are other examples that show the rules did change. The Rune Priest example I used to show how wargear works is an example showing the rules do change sometimes.
And you ignore their own example. Quoting the rest of that paragraph:
The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.
Their own example is a change in the rules. The rules for the model that said it had WS3 and giving it WS4 instead. That is a rule change.
Again (you probably didn't see the edit); the Rune Priest's Runic Weapon is another example of a rule change.
I would like to point out that technically cowmonaut's quote from the Errata/FAQ is from a legal source, where kirsanth's quote from the GW website is not. However, I doubt anyone would claim that it is not a legal source for a rules debate.
Being unneccessarily pedantic leads to arguments like this.
So you are saying that Errata may be a rule change versus is not? If so, you definitely need to be more clear. That is not at all what you said in your post.
If you are saying that Errata is never a rule change, well you are demonstrably wrong.
Edit: And in any event, does soemone have a counter-argument as to why Runes of Warding would not trigger separately like Runic Weapons did pre-Errata?
All I see it having done is distract from the argument a bit. I miss spoke (as I did not mean to imply that all Errata changes changed the rules).
An Errata change can change the rules. Examples include: - Various changes to the Warbikers entry (changed the profile, changed the rules for their guns, changed their wargear, etc. See Ork FAQ) - Wargear options for Wolf Scouts (Changed text from "replace a weapon with a power weapon" to "may take", allowing various wargear combinations that allow Wolf Scouts to have 3 weapons on models with Power Weapons) - Wargear options for Black Templar Bike Squadrons (see Wolf Scouts)
And so on.
So, knowing that the rules for Runes of Warding have changed, what's wrong with my argument? It seems pretty clear to me that two unique instances of a piece of wargear are triggered separately. Otherwise the Errata change would have been unnecessary and they could have just answered a FAQ of "If you are in range of multiple Rune Priests, does the Space Wolf player have multiple rolls?" rather than change the rules for that piece of wargear.
So, when they changed the rules by changing the ruling from "yes" to "no", they didnt change the rules? sorry, what?
By definition they changed the rules, and did so via FAQ. Making your distinction pointless, and any argument constructed from a distinction plain wrong.
You misread Kirsanth, they were very precise in their wording, which you misconstrued.
I think the problem is with your claim of FAQ being an interpretation. There has been occasion where the FAQ portion has changed rules (such as the whole PSA debacle and psychic defense vs units in vehicles).
cowmonaut wrote:@ nosferatu1001: That still doesn't invalidate my argument in any way. Would you like me to restate it in a different manner?
Your argument relies on there being a difference between an errata-rules change and a FAQ. Trouble is that FAQs change rules as well. Trying to construct an argument based on a difference when none, in practice, exists is doomed to failure.
My argument relies on no such thing. Edit: As I was hinting at in my previous reply, I would have been better off not mentioning the first part of my original post. That was in reply to a trend I was seeing in the thread that I disagree with, but had little to do with my own argument. I believe I'm on the same page as kisnrath now - won't know until he replies again or PM's me - with regards to what Errata can/can't be, but there is still a subtle difference between Errata and FAQ. It has nothing to do with this argument however, as all parts of my argument are from the Errata, not FAQ.
The rules for the Runic Weapon used by Space Wolf Rune Priests were worded different originally. The way they were worded allowed for multiple instances of the same wargear on different models to trigger off of the same event. The rules for this wargear item were changed so this was no longer possible.
My argument is that because of this, a specific exclusion is needed for Runes of Warding for the same reason. RAW, it works the same way the Runic Weapon used to. Which means that one trigger (the enemy making a psychic test) sets off both instances of the wargear.
If this were not true, the Errata change for the Runic Weapon would not have been necessary.
rigeld2 wrote:SitW does not stack with itself.
RoWa does.
RoWi stacks with either of the other two. (since you can't be affected by your own RoWi twice that I know of)
If "RoWa does" then "SitW" has to as well, as they both say the same thing.
I can see how it can be read both ways, thus the ambiguity.
They do not both say the same thing.
SitW says: "Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
RoWa says: "All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests..."
SitW is a check based on the psyker. Being in range of multiple SitW fulfills the requirement, so a single D6 is added.
RoWa is a check based on the wargear existing. So, each copy of it adds another die.
I don't know why this opinion persists. There is no reason to think that one would be a state check and the other would not. There is no wording to indicate that either of these is a just a check at all. The only difference is the qualifications of 'enemy psycker within 12" of a tyranid with SITW" while the other says just "enemy psyker". As these are both states why are you applying this 'check' to only one?
In any case niether is presented as just one state check for either the qualifications or the effect (Yes, I'm rolling an extra die). With the fairly straightforward words they use it's simple cause and effect. If A, then B... so if A three times, then B three times.
As far as the examples given for precedence of things not stacking, those things say they don't stack. That actually creates precedence for the argument that if things don't stack they'll say so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Not entirely true.
The change could be to remove ambiguity (as DR is saying)
Thats unlikely. The rules were clear before and there were no syntax errors to fix. It seems a change in the rules is the only reason they could have to make this alteration. I know I can't read there minds to get their intent but the reasonable options to guess form are rather limited... mostly down to one.
cowmonaut wrote:I believe I'm on the same page as kirsanth now - won't know until he replies again or PM's me - with regards to what Errata can/can't be, but there is still a subtle difference between Errata and FAQ.
There should be, and I think you are. Yes, I do think we agree about the idea but were debating minutae. The problem I had was in thinking that GWFAQ and Errata carry any different weight.
Both are within YMDC.
Both are within tourney bounds.
Both are exempt from Rule #1.
Both are exempt from technical restraints - e.g. errata leave text, FAQ change them.
Both carry the exact same weight in most gaming sitations.
@cowmonaut I have to congratulate you on your long starting(I think it was your first post in this discussion) statement, it put it in a way I was failing
@Abandon You have successfully changed my mind about SitW, it does not say being in range of at least one tyranid therefore multiple ones will add multiple dice(1 each)....which makes nids extremely annoying (or it would but my dark eldar don't use psychic powers )
Abandon - however the way SitW and the eldar powers interacted was not clear, as both required there to be 3D6 at some point. Hence the change in the wording.
Not too long ago, somebody asked for an example wargear stacking with itself (not sure who off hand, or when exactly it was asked). I would like to point out that per INAT (which as we know is not an official source) does mention a few instances of identical wargear on different models stacking. It has been mentioned that per INAT, RoWa do not stack with itself, however, interestingly enough, some of the Necron wargear (i.e. Seismic Crucible) does. As it is I have asked Yakface about this in INAT submission already, so hopefully we will have an answer regarding this.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - however the way SitW and the eldar powers interacted was not clear, as both required there to be 3D6 at some point. Hence the change in the wording.
You rolled 3d6. Whats not clear about that?
rigeld2 wrote:Wether you are in range of one Tyranid or 37, you are in range of a Tyranid.
I don't see SitW stacking.
“Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests"
It says "a Tyranid" not any number of...
Also by your thinking this was a change was pointless and while I do not put it past GW to make pointless changes it's usually best to assume they inteneded something.
Plus your arbitrarily using this logic one one ability but not the other without cuase. By your idea it would not matter how many RoW's they had, your still an 'enemy psyker' and therefor add one extra die.
@Hukoseft: Nids are always anoying when thet get to close
So you took the test on 3D6, 2D6 dropping the highest, or something else?
Thats why they changed the rules, because the interaction was not clear. Before you add anything - rolling XD6 and "taking the test" on YD6 are entirely different concepts. BEfore claiming differently reread how you take various tests, and note what constitutes actually taking the tests.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you took the test on 3D6, 2D6 dropping the highest, or something else?
Thats why they changed the rules, because the interaction was not clear. Before you add anything - rolling XD6 and "taking the test" on YD6 are entirely different concepts. BEfore claiming differently reread how you take various tests, and note what constitutes actually taking the tests.
As an army list never contains RoW and SITW no one model will be affected by both at the same time so what interaction are you referring to? I just got back into this game about three months ago so if there's some material on the subject I've not seen please forgive me and let me know where to find it. Otherwise the difference between making a test on 3d6 and rolling 3d6 on your test is so insignificant it is not worth noting much less putting an errata out for it.
"Taking the test" is defined as totting up the dice used and coming to an answer. So rolling 2D6 and taking the test on 2D6 are the same thing, however the Eldar power of roll 3D6, dropping the highest is still only "taking the test" on 2D6 - you rolled 3D6, but the dice you actually totted up are 2D6
There is a difference, which is why I asked you to actually read and take note of the wording for taking tests.
SitW and the 3D6, drop the highest Eldar power did NOT work together previously - because SitW specified you took the test on 3D6, breaking the Eldar power, and vice versa. Hence the errata, which allws you to add a dice for the Eldar power, add a separate one for SitW (meaning you are rolling 4D6) and then drop the highest to see if you have passed the test - taking the test on 3D6.
Abandon wrote:“Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests"
It says "a Tyranid" not any number of...
If you're in range of 37 Tyranids are you in range of a Tyranid? If you're in range of 1 Tyranid are you in range of a Tyranid?
Also by your thinking this was a change was pointless and while I do not put it past GW to make pointless changes it's usually best to assume they inteneded something.
It's usually best, when arguing RAW, not to assume anything.
Plus your arbitrarily using this logic one one ability but not the other without cuase. By your idea it would not matter how many RoW's they had, your still an 'enemy psyker' and therefor add one extra die.
Wrong. SitW and RoWa are not worded the same, and you're attempting to apply the same wording to both.
nosferatu1001 wrote:So you took the test on 3D6, 2D6 dropping the highest, or something else?
Thats why they changed the rules, because the interaction was not clear. Before you add anything - rolling XD6 and "taking the test" on YD6 are entirely different concepts. BEfore claiming differently reread how you take various tests, and note what constitutes actually taking the tests.
As an army list never contains RoW and SITW no one model will be affected by both at the same time so what interaction are you referring to? I just got back into this game about three months ago so if there's some material on the subject I've not seen please forgive me and let me know where to find it. Otherwise the difference between making a test on 3d6 and rolling 3d6 on your test is so insignificant it is not worth noting much less putting an errata out for it.
have you heard of this thing called apocalypse...you can have people on the same side which are different armies which means you can have that
"Taking the test" is defined as totting up the dice used and coming to an answer. So rolling 2D6 and taking the test on 2D6 are the same thing, however the Eldar power of roll 3D6, dropping the highest is still only "taking the test" on 2D6 - you rolled 3D6, but the dice you actually totted up are 2D6
There is a difference, which is why I asked you to actually read and take note of the wording for taking tests.
SitW and the 3D6, drop the highest Eldar power did NOT work together previously - because SitW specified you took the test on 3D6, breaking the Eldar power, and vice versa. Hence the errata, which allws you to add a dice for the Eldar power, add a separate one for SitW (meaning you are rolling 4D6) and then drop the highest to see if you have passed the test - taking the test on 3D6.
I was speaking of RoWa, sorry if that was not clear. If they had intended the change just to accommodate RoWi they would have just changed RoWi to +1 die drop the lowest. The change they made has broader implications.
rigeld2 wrote: If you're in range of 37 Tyranids are you in range of a Tyranid? If you're in range of 1 Tyranid are you in range of a Tyranid?
you would be in range of a Tyranid 37 times just like you would be in range(unlimited) of a RoWa 2 times if they had 2 of them. In other words, if you are an enemy psyer within range of a nid with SITW you are affected by that models aiblity. There is no wording to indicate you will not be affected by another nids SITW as well.
rigeld2 wrote: It's usually best, when arguing RAW, not to assume anything.
For communication and comprehension to occure some minor assumptions must be made. However this is GW and as I've said I would not put it past them to make pointless changes but I don't generally assume they intend to do so.
rigeld2 wrote: Wrong. SITW and RoWa are not worded the same, and you're attempting to apply the same wording to both.
The deference in wording extends only so far as to say which psykers are affected. The effect is the same.
Hukoseft wrote: have you heard of this thing called apocalypse...you can have people on the same side which are different armies which means you can have that
This is possible but I was under the impression that apolalypse has it's own rules and these are intended for the basic 40k game.
All that having been said, I feel I have a valid view of the changes but that is not to say others are necessarily incorrect either. GW could have intended most any of the opinions expressed here and it would not be strictly against their wording. Deathreapers 'I'm already rolling an extra die' line of thought is just as logical as 'I'm in range of a Tyranid if I'm in range of 37 of them'(though both are unsupported by the text IMO).
Abandon - no, the errata was to accomodate the interactions AND partially consistency. Something theyve started to get good at, recently.
Well, better at least!
Also - I'm arguing they DO stack
Edit: ytour claim falls down with SitW, however - its the same as a Waaagh banner, in that being in range of multiple fulfils the requirement, unlike Runes where no range requirement is required
nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - no, the errata was to accomodate the interactions AND partially consistency. Something theyve started to get good at, recently.
Well, better at least!
Also - I'm arguing they DO stack
Edit: ytour claim falls down with SitW, however - its the same as a Waaagh banner, in that being in range of multiple fulfils the requirement, unlike Runes where no range requirement is required
I can't address the Waaagh banner as I don't have access to that book. What is its exact wording?
SITW is a creature ability and each will act separately. You say that if your in range of 7 nids with SITW you are in range of a nid with SITW and to the other 6 you'd say I'm already rolling my extra die... Which is what DeathReaper kept saying about RoWa... I see only a range limit difference between the two... Why do you leap to different kinds of reasoning for the two?
Abandon wrote:SITW is a creature ability and each will act separately. You say that if your in range of 7 nids with SITW you are in range of a nid with SITW and to the other 6 you'd say I'm already rolling my extra die... Which is what DeathReaper kept saying about RoWa... I see only a range limit difference between the two... Why do you leap to different kinds of reasoning for the two?
No.
You're in range of a nid. You roll an extra die.
You're about to take a psychic test. Check to see if you're in range of a nid with SitW. You are? Add the die.
Where is the permission to check more than once?
RoWa is worded differently - you cannot compare the triggers.
Abandon wrote:SITW is a creature ability and each will act separately. You say that if your in range of 7 nids with SITW you are in range of a nid with SITW and to the other 6 you'd say I'm already rolling my extra die... Which is what DeathReaper kept saying about RoWa... I see only a range limit difference between the two... Why do you leap to different kinds of reasoning for the two?
No.
You're in range of a nid. You roll an extra die.
You're about to take a psychic test. Check to see if you're in range of a nid with SitW. You are? Add the die.
Where is the permission to check more than once?
RoWa is worded differently - you cannot compare the triggers.
It is not describing the enemy psyker. It's describing SITW which is of couse, on a Tyranid. Explaing how the SITW ability on that nid will affect the enemy psyker.
You're about to take a psychic test. The SITW nids check to see if they have range on you. They do? Add an extra die for each.
Where is the permission to ignore any particular instance of SITW?
Why would you check SitW range from the Tyranid's perspective? It says "Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, and will suffer a Perils of the Warp attack on the roll of any double 1 or double 6.", not "Any Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule within 12"of an enemy psyker forces him to roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, and he will suffer a Perils of the Warp attack on the roll of any double 1 or double 6."
Going by the rule, the enemy psyker is the action taker, he adds the extra D6 if he is within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW, the Tyranid does not force him to roll an extra D6 if it is within 12" of him.
Avatar 720 wrote: Going by the rule, the enemy psyker is the action taker, he adds the extra D6 if he is within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW, the Tyranid does not force him to roll an extra D6 if it is within 12" of him.
Really? I pretty sure the Tyranids SITW ability is what will 'force him to roll an extra D6 if it is within 12" of him'.
Edit:
Avatar 720 wrote:"Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule".
You have just stated why you would check it. This is not told for the perspective of the psyker, it's from the perspective of the Tyranid. That's what makes it any 'enemy psyker'.
Does the rule say 'A Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule forces any enemy psyker within 12" to roll an extra dice when taking psychic tests.'?
The rule forces him to roll an extra D6 if he is within 12" of it, not the other way around.
You are looking at it as if 12" from the Tyranid to the psyker is the exact same as 12" from the psyker to the Tyranid, but it isn't, and the way that the rule is worded - "Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid..." - tells us that we check whether the psyker is within 12" of a Tyranid, not whether a Tyranid is within 12" of him, the latter of which allow for more than 1 extra D6, with the former being restricted to 1 extra D6.
Avatar 720 wrote:Does the rule say 'A Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule forces any enemy psyker within 12" to roll an extra dice when taking psychic tests.'?
The rule forces him to roll an extra D6 if he is within 12" of it, not the other way around.
You are looking at it as if 12" from the Tyranid to the psyker is the exact same as 12" from the psyker to the Tyranid, but it isn't, and the way that the rule is worded - "Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid..." - tells us that we check whether the psyker is within 12" of a Tyranid, not whether a Tyranid is within 12" of him, the latter of which allow for more than 1 extra D6, with the former being restricted to 1 extra D6.
You have this all backwards. The subject matter which is written in bold letters above the section says SHADOW IN THE WARP. It is not about the enemy psyker, it's about what a Tyranid with SITW does to them when they try to use a psychic power within 12 inches of it.
Avatar 720 wrote:Does the rule say 'A Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule forces any enemy psyker within 12" to roll an extra dice when taking psychic tests.'?
The rule forces him to roll an extra D6 if he is within 12" of it, not the other way around.
You are looking at it as if 12" from the Tyranid to the psyker is the exact same as 12" from the psyker to the Tyranid, but it isn't, and the way that the rule is worded - "Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid..." - tells us that we check whether the psyker is within 12" of a Tyranid, not whether a Tyranid is within 12" of him, the latter of which allow for more than 1 extra D6, with the former being restricted to 1 extra D6.
You have this all backwards. The subject matter which is written in bold letters above the section says SHADOW IN THE WARP. It is not about the enemy psyker, it's about what a Tyranid with SITW does to them when they try to use a psychic power within 12 inches of it.
Exactly. If a psyker attempts to cast a power within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW, he adds an extra D6; the rule says it, you have just said it. It is not about what happens when a Tyranid is within 12" of a psyker, which would add +1 for each Tyranid as opposed to the single one you get for being within 12" of a Tyranid when casting.
Look at it this way: Enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW? Yes. Add an extra D6. Tyranid with SitW within 12" of an enemy psyker? Yes. Add an extra D6. Enemy psyker within 12" of 5 Tyranids with SitW? Yes. Add an extra D6 for being within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW. 5 Tyranids with SitW within 12" of an enemy psyker? Yes. Add an extra 5D6 for 5 Tyranids with SitW being within 12" of the psyker.
Do you see how differently the rule would have to be worded for the multiple D6 to take effect? If it said 'A Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule forces any enemy psyker within 12" to roll an extra dice when taking psychic tests.' then you would check to see if your Tyranid is within 12", and if he is, the enemy psyker rolls and extra D6, then you check to see if another one is within 12", and if he is, the enemy psyker rolls a further extra D6.
What matters here is what the rule tells you to check, and it tells you to check to see if the enemy psyker is within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW NOT the other way around.
'Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid' grammatically indicates the Tyranid as the point from which to calculate distance. You still have this backwards.
SITW is an ability that triggers when an enemy psyker tries to do it's thing within 12 inches from the the nid.
Abandon wrote:'Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid' grammatically indicates the Tyranid as the point from which to calculate distance. You still have this backwards.
SITW is an ability that triggers when an enemy psyker tries to do it's thing within 12 inches from the the nid.
You failed to address anything in my previous post.
I don't see what this 'backwards' stuff has to do with what the rules tell you to do.
Enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW? Measure from the Tyranid to the psyker. Yes. Add an extra D6. Tyranid with SitW within 12" of an enemy psyker? Measure from the psyker to the Tyranid. Yes. Add an extra D6. Enemy psyker within 12" of 5 Tyranids with SitW? Measure from the Tyranids to the psyker. Yes. Add an extra D6 for being within 12" of a Tyranid with SitW. 5 Tyranids with SitW within 12" of an enemy psyker? Measure from the psyker to the Tyranid. Yes. Add an extra 5D6 for 5 Tyranids with SitW being within 12" of the psyker.
What of that, bar the incorrect way of handling the rule, is backwards?
Avatar 720 wrote:Why would you check SitW range from the Tyranid's perspective?
I was answering your previous question before moving on.
It is the Tyranids ability that is being activated. When you measure from the Tyranids to the psyker you're checking the state if the nid to make sure it has range. Yes? add a d6. Repeat for each nid. Add a d6 for each in range.
You may see it like that Deathreaper but to me it's quite easy, 1 Rune of Warding = +1 extra dice so 3d6; 2 Runes of Warding tell you to = +1 extra dice, +1 extra dice so 4d6.
I can't really see the counterargument, 2 different pieces of war gear on different models, why shouldn't they both take effect? I fail to see the contradiction myself and I don't see an advantageous option but a correct one, however I would abide by rolling a d6.
You measure from the psyker to the Nid, actually - not the other way around.
That is why it is a one or more achieving the same result situation - as soon as you are in range of one, you are within 12" of a tyranid and comply with the rule, thus only ever adding 1D6.
I agree with SitW not stacking. The wording coupled with the fact that it's goes from the psyker to the tyranid let us infer that once you check and any tyranid is in range you add the extra dice, and then stop checking.
nosferatu1001 wrote:You measure from the psyker to the Nid, actually - not the other way around.
That is why it is a one or more achieving the same result situation - as soon as you are in range of one, you are within 12" of a tyranid and comply with the rule, thus only ever adding 1D6.
Each instance of SITW is a separate ability on a separate Tyranid model. That is why the singular is used. Why are you taking it to mean only one matters?
"Any enemy psyker within 12” of a Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule" Is there some other way you would like them to refer to a nid with SITW?
You a wrong about the measurement also. If I say object#1 is within X distance form object#2, I'm indicating an X length radius circle around object#2 in which object#1 exists. In this case object#1 is the enemy psyker and object#2 is the Tyranid with a 12" bubble around it your looking to see if the psyker is within and the point you are given to measure from is the Tyranid.
nosferatu1001 wrote: as soon as you are in range of one, you are within 12" of a tyranid and comply with the rule, thus only ever adding 1D6.
This is the very same logic you argued(correctly) against with DeathReaper though he was saying 'as soon as you add an extra die you are complying with the rule, thus only ever adding 1D6'. It seems the only reason you flip over on this one is because this rule talks about a Tyranid...
In any case, play it as you like. I'm done arguing about it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: as soon as you are in range of one, you are within 12" of a tyranid and comply with the rule, thus only ever adding 1D6.
This is the very same logic you argued(correctly) against with DeathReaper though he was saying 'as soon as you add an extra die you are complying with the rule, thus only ever adding 1D6'. It seems the only reason you flip over on this one is because this rule talks about a Tyranid...
Again, you are trying to argue that SitW and RoWa are processed the same despite different wording.
You cannot compare the two abilities as the trigger is not the same.
Also, I'm a Tyranid player and am against SitW stacking. There's no bias involved here. Accusations of such are in poor taste usually.
Abandon - yes, you ARE done here. As soon as you start accusing others of bias due to the army, you have lost any argument you were trying to make, and ANY credibility on this sub forum.
I play nids. I dont play Eldar. Guess youre entirely wrong, as ever
Oh, and youre comparing two different rules which have two different wordings, and stating they are the same. Wrong. Just, simply, wrong.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - yes, you ARE done here. As soon as you start accusing others of bias due to the army, you have lost any argument you were trying to make, and ANY credibility on this sub forum.
I play nids. I dont play Eldar. Guess youre entirely wrong, as ever
Oh, and youre comparing two different rules which have two different wordings, and stating they are the same. Wrong. Just, simply, wrong.
I never accused you of bias. I said because it talks about 'a Tyranid' to stress the singular which fit into what I was saying and had nothing to do with army lists. You are good at misreading things though so..
I wasnt the only one who came to that "misinterpretation" of something very simple - that I flipped over because the rules talk about a tyranid, implying it is because i dont play tyranids / do play Eldar.
Abandon, I don't think you can interpret SitW that way just because it states "a tyranid". The 'a' isn't singular in the 'each' sense, but more of the 'a/any' sense.
As an experiment, let's say a named character "Tyranid Killer Killington" has a special piece of wargear that states "If Killington is in base contact with a tyranid with shadows in the warp special rule, he gains an extra attack."
How many extra attacks would he get if he is fighting 3 warriors?
Answer would be one, because the rule checks whether or not he is in contact with a tyranid with SitW, if yes he adds the extra attack. It would not stack because it does not ask if he is in contact with two, or three, it doesn't care.
That is not the same as RoWa because RoWa because RoWa is the wargear with the rule, and both farseers RoWa have to fire because the conditions are met.
yakface responded to my query in the INAT submission thread. Here is what he has to say.
yakface wrote:
Happyjew wrote:I have a question regarding the latest INATFAQ.:
INAT wrote:NEC.85G.02 – Q: If two Crypteks with Seismic Crucible are attached to the same unit, can one enemy unit be nominated for both, reducing their assault move by 2D3 inches?
A: Yes [clarification].
ELD.26D.01 – Q: Are multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same Eldar army cumulative with each other (meaning opposing psykers take their psychic tests using 4D6)?
A: No, multiple instances of Runes of Warding in the same army still only add a single extra D6 to enemy psychic tests [clarification].
I'm curious why one set of wargear stacks, yet another does not. Any clarification would be appreciated.
This point was definitely brought up during the discussion and there is no completely clear-cut answer.
In the case of the Seismic Crucible it seemed fairly straight forward: The ability is generated separately by each Cryptek and could be allocated onto two different units, affecting them both, so it makes sense that applying both Crucibles onto a single enemy unit would mean it suffers the effects of both.
The Runes of Warding is a bit more of a tricky situation. There are those that believe GW's errata was done specifically to allow the stacking of multiple Runes of Warding, but we felt it was pretty clear the change was made to iron out the issues you had when you had a Runes of Witnessing vs. a Runes of Warding in opposing armies.
While we could be 100% wrong, we don't think the intention was to make two sets of Runes of Warding in the same army essentially shut down any opposing army from using any psychic powers (as taking tests on a 4D6 would do). I know Eldar certainly could benefit from such a boost, but we're basically falling back on the absurdity clause here: It just seems highly unlikely that GW intends for this errata to suddenly increase the power of Runes of Witnessing to an incredible level...that's not what their errata are typically used for. They are used to clarify genuinely unclear situations, and the unclear situation that we believe the errata was made to address was when you had Runes of Witnessing vs. Runes of Warding in opposing armies.
Abandon wrote:As far as the examples given for precedence of things not stacking, those things say they don't stack. That actually creates precedence for the argument that if things don't stack they'll say so.
This is exactly my point, and why I provided the example of the Runic Weapon. Not only is it precedent for things stacking if there isn't a specific exception, it sets precedent for things requiring a FAQ/Errata update to make it so.
kirsanth wrote:
Spoiler:
cowmonaut wrote:I believe I'm on the same page as kirsanth now - won't know until he replies again or PM's me - with regards to what Errata can/can't be, but there is still a subtle difference between Errata and FAQ.
There should be, and I think you are. Yes, I do think we agree about the idea but were debating minutae. The problem I had was in thinking that GWFAQ and Errata carry any different weight.
Both are within YMDC.
Both are within tourney bounds.
Both are exempt from Rule #1.
Both are exempt from technical restraints - e.g. errata leave text, FAQ change them.
Both carry the exact same weight in most gaming sitations.
Agreed, though I do think there's a subtle difference between the two. They are equally important and that argument is rather beside the point with regards to this thread which is why I may have seemed exasperated.
Hukoseft wrote:@cowmonaut I have to congratulate you on your long starting(I think it was your first post in this discussion) statement, it put it in a way I was failing
Thank you!
Hukoseft wrote:have you heard of this thing called apocalypse...you can have people on the same side which are different armies which means you can have that
Apocalypse is not Warhammer 40,000 standard. The FAQs/Errata seem to be for Warhammer 40,000 standard. Apocalypse is a supplement that changes the core rules and has caveats about such weird things, if I'm recalling correctly. I wouldn't base any arguments on how things should work based on Apocalypse at the moment.
Avatar 720 wrote:Does the rule say 'A Tyranid with the Shadow in the Warp special rule forces any enemy psyker within 12" to roll an extra dice when taking psychic tests.'?
The rule forces him to roll an extra D6 if he is within 12" of it, not the other way around.
You are looking at it as if 12" from the Tyranid to the psyker is the exact same as 12" from the psyker to the Tyranid, but it isn't, and the way that the rule is worded - "Any enemy psyker within 12" of a Tyranid..." - tells us that we check whether the psyker is within 12" of a Tyranid, not whether a Tyranid is within 12" of him, the latter of which allow for more than 1 extra D6, with the former being restricted to 1 extra D6.
Thank you Avatar 720! You just pointed out a very subtle difference I was missing. You are, I think, 100% correct with regards to SitW not stacking. The actionable party is the person taking the test, so it only triggers once if any Tyranid with the special rule is within 12". If it was the other way around, that power would be stacking with itself but because of the way its worded it doesn't.
jgehunter wrote:You may see it like that Deathreaper but to me it's quite easy, 1 Rune of Warding = +1 extra dice so 3d6; 2 Runes of Warding tell you to = +1 extra dice, +1 extra dice so 4d6.
I can't really see the counterargument, 2 different pieces of war gear on different models, why shouldn't they both take effect? I fail to see the contradiction myself and I don't see an advantageous option but a correct one, however I would abide by rolling a d6.
I'm with you here. The rules for the wargear and the precedent set forth by other wargear seems to say that they stack.
So, how do they all interact? Just add dice and effects!
- Runes of Warding and Runes of Warding: Test is 4D6 (multiple instances) and perils on any total of 12 or more.
- Runes of Warding versus Runes of Witnessing: Test is 4D6 (or more if multiple Runes of Warding are present), you discard the highest and peril on any total of 12 or more.
- Shadow in the Warp versus Runes of Witnessing: Test is 4D6 if in range of any Tyranid (including multiple) with the SitW Special Rule, you discard the highest and peril on any double 1 or double 6.
- Runes of Warding and Shadow in the Warp: Test is on 4D6 (or more if multiple Runes of Warding are present) with perils on any double 1, double 6, or total of 12 or more.
- Runes of Warding and Shadow in the Warp versus Runes of Witnessing: Test is on 5D6 (or more if multiple Runes of Warding are present), you discard the highest and peril on any double 1, double 6, or total of 12 or more.
The rules can all stack with one another. The only one that stacks with itself is Runes of Warding, due to how the rules are worded. Avatar 720 (and others!) were right that Shadow in the Warp does not stack. The way the rule is worded, the enemy psyker checks if he is in range of one of your Tyranids with Shadow in the Warp. If he is, he rolls an extra dice on his test.
Oddly enough I'm thinking these interactions make more sense than what they had before.
cowmonaut wrote:The rules can all stack with one another. The only one that stacks with itself is Runes of Warding, due to how the rules are worded.
Runes of Witnessing would stack with itself as well. But, whether you would drop the highest die or the two highest dice is ambiguous. Fortunately, there's no way to get multiples Runes of Witnessing to effect a psychic test (for now).
True, but since you can't take it twice on the same character its mostly irrelevant. I suppose for completeness I should have included that hypothetical as well, but I didn't want to confuse people.
