Hey guys, we have a challenge as to the interpretation of the new Shadow in the Warp amendment. User A's interpretation of the the rule is that the rule now stack, example: a Librarian wishing to use a psychic power within range on 9 Warrior now has to take his psychic test on 11D6. User B's interpretation of the amendment is that changing the language of the rule did not change the affect of the rule, example: a Librarian wishing to use a psychic power within range on 1 Warrior now has to take his psychic test on 3D6, at the same time that same Librarian wishing to use a psychic power within range on 9 Warrior now has to take his psychic test on 3D6.

The Original

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 and suffer a Perils of the Warp attack on the roll on any double 1 or double 6.

The Amendment

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.

What is your interpretation of this amendment.

I am going to go with Player B, who says they don't stack, because I think you'd need a 'per Tyranid with the SiTW special rule', instead of 'within 12" blah blah special rule". Once they are within 12" of a nid with the rule, they roll 3D6, and the SiTW rule is 'sated'.

well my question with this is why did they change is to say "within 12" on a SitW rolls an extra dice"?

broodstar wrote:well my question with this is why did they change is to say "within 12" on a SitW rolls an extra dice"?

Because this was, if there is something else in play that changes the number of dice the psyker has to roll, there is no conflict.

Other than that change, the revised wording makes no difference to how SitW works. It just changes the 3D6 to an extra D6.

insaniak wrote:

broodstar wrote:well my question with this is why did they change is to say "within 12" on a SitW rolls an extra dice"?

Because this was, if there is something else in play that changes the number of dice the psyker has to roll, there is no conflict.

Other than that change, the revised wording makes no difference to how SitW works. It just changes the 3D6 to an extra D6.

I'm sorry but, I will have to respectfully diagree. This isn't a simple change the word "A" to "THE," this is changing a set amount to a non-set addition.

Under the old language is didn't matter how many it was in range of, the debuff amount was set at 3d6, I could have my entire army around that psyker and it will be just 3D6.

Under the new language, the psyker is within range of a model with SitW that +1 dice. one model =+1 dice, one model =+1 dice, etc.

With that language that looks like 1 model = 1 extra dice. That lends itself to the question of being cumulative.

broodstar wrote:This isn't a simple change the word "A" to "THE," this is changing a set amount to a non-set addition.

That's exactly what I said.

Under the old language is didn't matter how many it was in range of, the debuff amount was set at 3d6, I could have my entire army around that psyker and it will be just 3D6.

Under the new language, the psyker is within range of a model with SitW that +1 dice. one model =+1 dice, one model =+1 dice, etc.

With that language that looks like 1 model = 1 extra dice. That lends itself to the question of being cumulative.

There is no question of it being cumulative, any more than there is for the Waaagh! Banner. You roll an extra D6 if you are within range of a relevant Tyranid. Not a D6 for each Tyranid within range. One, two, seven, or a hundred and forty-three Tyranids... it makes no difference. In each case there is a Tyranid within range, and so you roll the extra D6.

Again, the only thing that has changed is that you are rolling an extra D6 instead of a set 3D6.

broodstar wrote:well my question with this is why did they change is to say "within 12" on a SitW rolls an extra dice"?

If a psyker has his own special rule that allows him to roll 3D6 at all times, then there would be no downside to him using his abilities within 12 inches because he already uses 3D6 anyway.

Changing the wording to +1 D6 always makes it more risky to use irregardless of the initial number of dice used.

d-usa wrote:

broodstar wrote:well my question with this is why did they change is to say "within 12" on a SitW rolls an extra dice"?

If a psyker has his own special rule that allows him to roll 3D6 at all times, then there would be no downside to him using his abilities within 12 inches because he already uses 3D6 anyway.

Changing the wording to +1 D6 always makes it more risky to use irregardless of the initial number of dice used.

What psychic powers are taken on 3D6, one, name one?

broodstar wrote:What psychic powers are taken on 3D6, one, name one?

I rather suspect that it's not so much to cover current situations, as to bring the language in line with the same change having been made to Eldar Runes of Warding, to remove potential conflicts from Eldar vs Eldar games.

Most of my arguement has already been said. If a GK unit wanted to use hammerhand against a 5 Strong Warrior Brood, then they would use this flow chart.


Is the Psyker (in this case the entire unit) within range of a Tyranid with SitW? Yes. +1 Dice. On 3D6.
Is it with range of creature 2? Yes. +1 Dice. On 4D6.

And so on.


Now, it could be that they made a typing error and meant to say Tyranid Unit, because autofailing tests when within range of 9 warriors is pretty powerful, but the words state:

If a psyker is with range of a Tyraind (meaning a model) with rule, then.it adds +1 to the number of dice they must roll for a psychic test.

Deadshot wrote:Most of my arguement has already been said. If a GK unit wanted to use hammerhand against a 5 Strong Warrior Brood, then they would use this flow chart.


Is the Psyker (in this case the entire unit) within range of a Tyranid with SitW? Yes. +1 Dice. On 3D6.
Is it with range of creature 2? Yes. +1 Dice. On 4D6.

And so on.

This is incorrect. Again, it doesn't say that you add a D6 for each Tyranid.

If the Psyker is within range of a single Tyranid with SitW, then he is within range of a Tyranid with SitW. He therefore adds +1D6 to his roll.
If the Psyker is within range of 2 Tyranids with SitW, then he is within range of a Tyranid with SitW. He therefore adds +1D6 to his roll.
If the Psyker is within range of 127 Tyranids with SitW, then he is within range of a Tyranid with SitW. He therefore adds +1D6 to his roll.

This isn't just trying to stomp on a single Tyranid power. There are a number of abilities and effects in the game that function similarly based on having 'a model' or the like in the wordage. The most commonly discussed example being the Waaagh! Banner I mentioned earlier.

Which states a a unit with a waaagh Banner gains +1 WS. I see that and agree with that.


I don't feel there is any way to convince me soI will just go. Maybe they will put it on the next FAQ.

Sorry Deadshot, but insaniak is right. As the rule states, if you are within range of A tyranid creature with sitw, you roll an extra d6. This is an inclusive term, referring to any tyranid within range. It's a permissive ruleset, so unless it explicitly says something it doesn't happen. For it to be an extra d6 for each tyranid, it would have to refer to EACH model within range.

grrr

Deadshot wrote:Which states a a unit with a waaagh Banner gains +1 WS. I see that and agree with that.

So why would you think that SitW works differently, when it is worded the same way?

broodstar wrote:

d-usa wrote:

broodstar wrote:well my question with this is why did they change is to say "within 12" on a SitW rolls an extra dice"?

If a psyker has his own special rule that allows him to roll 3D6 at all times, then there would be no downside to him using his abilities within 12 inches because he already uses 3D6 anyway.

Changing the wording to +1 D6 always makes it more risky to use irregardless of the initial number of dice used.

What psychic powers are taken on 3D6, one, name one?

I was not talking about psychic powers in particular, I was talking about special characters, wargear items, or other special rules that may give a psyker the ability to roll 3D6 on a regular basis. I don't have every entry of every Codex memorized, so I don't know if such a rule exists. But if there are other rules that increase the total to 3D6 then it will now stack with SitW.

The fancy folks at GW have play test rules for 6th Ed and play test rules for new books coming out. Maybe there will be rules in there that will be inpacted by this change. Who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:The Original

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 and suffer a Perils of the Warp attack on the roll on any double 1 or double 6.

The Amendment

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.

Under the original ruling, did you roll a Perils of the Warp attack for each Tyranid in range? So if there was one Tyranid, you rolled one test with 3D6, if there was two Tyranids you rolled two tests with 3D6, if there were three Tyranids you rolled three separate tests with 3D6?

If you didn't, why not?

broodstar wrote: What psychic powers are taken on 3D6, one, name one?

An Eldar Farseer with "Runes of Witnesing" rolls 3d6 for psykic powers, if he is now within 12" from a SitW Nid he will have to test on 4d6. I dont bevive there is a single army that forces players to roll more than 2d6 for standared psykic abilitys. Just certain wargear.

Nicorex wrote:

broodstar wrote: What psychic powers are taken on 3D6, one, name one?

An Eldar Farseer with "Runes of Witnesing" rolls 3d6 for psykic powers, if he is now within 12" from a SitW Nid he will have to test on 4d6. I dont bevive there is a single army that forces players to roll more than 2d6 for standared psykic abilitys. Just certain wargear.

I am vindicated

insaniak wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Which states a a unit with a waaagh Banner gains +1 WS. I see that and agree with that.

So why would you think that SitW works differently, when it is worded the same way?

Because it isn't worded the same. A Waaaagh banner


"A unit including a Waaagh Banner gains +1 WS. "

We all agree they don't stack.


SitW is worded differently. IMO at least.

I am sorry but I cannot be convibced that SitW is non cumulative.

Deadshot wrote:I am sorry but I cannot be convibced that SitW is non cumulative.

Why not?
Name ONE situation where any modifier to a die roll stacks with itself.

Deadshot wrote:Because it isn't worded the same. A Waaaagh banner


"A unit including a Waaagh Banner gains +1 WS. "

And a psyker within range of a tyranid with SitW rolls an extra D6.

What, exactly, are you seeing as a difference?

helgrenze wrote:

Deadshot wrote:I am sorry but I cannot be convibced that SitW is non cumulative.

Why not?
Name ONE situation where any modifier to a die roll stacks with itself.

Possibly Runes of Warding, however, there was already one long back and forth of "They do!" "They don't!". I say POSSIBLY because there is no need to start that storm back up. That same argument also brings up the mention of SitW and why it should.shouldn't stack with itself. You would have to do a search for it however.

Psychic Communion. Reserve Rolls from special rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Because it isn't worded the same. A Waaaagh banner


"A unit including a Waaagh Banner gains +1 WS. "

And a psyker within range of a tyranid with SitW rolls an extra D6.

What, exactly, are you seeing as a difference?

Because multiple dice are being added. It has suggestions of stacking. Waagh banners do not.

If you have 1 Warrior within 12", do you have a Tyranid within SitW in range?

If you have 10 Warriors within 12", do you have a Tyranid within SitW range?

Deadshot wrote:Because multiple dice are being added. It has suggestions of stacking. Waagh banners do not.

Yes, I get that's what you're claiming. I'm asking why you think they work differently.

The banner adds +1 to your WS for having a banner in the unit.
The SitW adds +1 D6 to your psychic test for having a Tyranid with SitW in range.

They're both using the same trigger. If 'a' relevant item is in the relevant place, then add the relevant thing.

So why does one stack, and the other not?

Actually the banner is not adding anything itself. A unit gains +1 WS because tgey included a banner. Otherwise it would read "A Banner gives a unit +1WS." In fact, then it would stack.

SitW forces a Psyker to roll an additional dice if in range of a creature with the rule. I don't see it as quite the same thing.

I guess it only matters against the games you play. My gaming group was the ones who told it to me this way and so I play it that way. Another group may see it another. TOs may read it anotger. YMMV.

Happyjew wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

Deadshot wrote:I am sorry but I cannot be convibced that SitW is non cumulative.

Why not?
Name ONE situation where any modifier to a die roll stacks with itself.

Possibly Runes of Warding, however, there was already one long back and forth of "They do!" "They don't!". I say POSSIBLY because there is no need to start that storm back up. That same argument also brings up the mention of SitW and why it should.shouldn't stack with itself. You would have to do a search for it however.

"Possibly" doesn't count. Afaik, GW has no rule anywhere that stacks modifiers to die rolls.

Reserve roll modfiers?

Actually there is one. the Autarch 'Master Strategist' special rule stacks. 'Master Strategist' allows you to add +1 to reserve rolls, and GW clarified that it does indeed stack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. If an army has two Autarchs, does it get +2 to its Reserve rolls? (p29)
A. The player may choose each turn whether to add +1, +2 or no bonus to his reserve rolls.

However,

Q: If I have more than one Hive Tyrant with the Hive Commander ability, do their bonuses to reserve rolls stack? Also, do I get to outflank with one Troops unit, or one Troops unit per Hive Tyrant with this upgrade? (p34)
A: No, the reserve roll bonuses do not stack. You can only choose to outflank with a single unit of Troops, regardless of how many Hive Tyrants you have with this ability.

Tge same would be true for other reserve modifiers like Psychic Communion.

Also, IG reserve roll bonuses do not stack:

Q. If you take two Astropaths or two Officers of the Fleet, do their +1/-1 to reserve rolls stack? (p31)
A. No. The advantage of having multiples of these Regimental Advisors is that you can still gain the benefit of the Telepathic Relay/Intercept Reserves rules should one Astropath/Officer of the Fleet be killed. The confusion created by having so many advisors simultaneously vying for a Commander’s attention negates any potential benefit.

Using the logic presented.... A SM player can field two captains with Command squads, each with a Company Banner and any units within 12" of both would score two extra wounds for assault combat resolution.

Wrong. Only the command squad or Honour Guard in the case of the Chapter Banner, score the extra wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it wouldn't allow them to reroll morale or pinning tests twice either. No connection.

I'd it said "for every" it's stack. It doesn't. It says "if there's a" which would be true for 1-n SitW Tyranids.

My interpretation is it stacks, BUT, in the case of a Brood, it is the entire brood not each model as it'd be a little unfair.

E.g. 1: A unit of GK is within range of a Tyranid warrior brood and thus adds 1 dice to its psychic test.

E.g. 2: A unit of GK is within range of a HT, 2x Trygons and a Tervigon, thus adding 4 dice to its psychic test.

Personally I find the new wording very clear.

In the case of special rules which do not stack GW has always said in that particular rules entry that multiple units with that rule do not add extra dice. This has no such entry. Thus, it stacks.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:My interpretation is it stacks, BUT, in the case of a Brood, it is the entire brood not each model as it'd be a little unfair.

So it stacks, except when it's unfair... I'm sure you can find a rule to cite for that interpretation.
Except there isn't one. a) it doesn't stack. b) if it did, it'd be for every model. Fairness isn't in the rules.

This has no such entry. Thus, it stacks.

The wording of the rule prevents it from stacking. It doesn't need an additional statement.

rigeld2 wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:My interpretation is it stacks, BUT, in the case of a Brood, it is the entire brood not each model as it'd be a little unfair.

So it stacks, except when it's unfair... I'm sure you can find a rule to cite for that interpretation.
Except there isn't one. a) it doesn't stack. b) if it did, it'd be for every model. Fairness isn't in the rules.

This has no such entry. Thus, it stacks.

The wording of the rule prevents it from stacking. It doesn't need an additional statement.

But there are precedents of rules stating whether they stack or not.


Put simply none of us are either right or wrong until GW gets its thumb out of its you know what and updates the FAQ to cover this.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:


Put simply none of us are either right or wrong until GW gets its thumb out of its you know what and updates the FAQ to cover this.

Except one of us is wrong since it in no way shape or form says it is on a per model/unit basis. Any other reading is just willfully misinterpreting the rules

calypso2ts wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:


Put simply none of us are either right or wrong until GW gets its thumb out of its you know what and updates the FAQ to cover this.

Except one of us is wrong since it in no way shape or form says it is on a per model/unit basis. Any other reading is just willfully misinterpreting the rules

I'll gladly follow whatever the outcome of this is, and so long as people are divided on this, people will continue to argue pointlessly. so for now, I will run it how my local gaming group does. And patiently wait until GW amends the SITW rules accordingly.

also "Any other reading is just willfully misinterpreting the rules" could be argued against you as well.

that said, I'm unfollowing this thread as it is boiling down to arguments rather than constructively talking about it.

I'd have a constructive conversation with you if you posted rules support.

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.

It does not state, that it doesnt stack. rules which add or detract dice, can choose to add plus one/minus one state whether or not that they stack. this does neither. It's been raised in many gaming circles that I'm involved with. and it remains undecided. So as it stands, I run it through with the general consensus of the room, every time I game with Nids.

And its going to continue this way until GW clarify, I see no point in arguing further.

Deadshot wrote:Actually the banner is not adding anything itself. A unit gains +1 WS because tgey included a banner.

...so the banner is adding +1 WS.

SitW forces a Psyker to roll an additional dice if in range of a creature with the rule. I don't see it as quite the same thing.

So you keep saying... but without explaining why.


Including a banner grants a bonus. Including multiple banners doesn't stack, because the rule doesn't ask for 'each' banner... it just triggers if a banner is included. The number of banners makes no difference.

SitW is exactly the same. Being in range of a creature with SitW grants a penalty. Including multiple creatures doesn't stack, because as with the banner, the trigger is simply having such a creature within range. The rule does not call for the penalty to be applied for each creature.

Both rules are written in exactly the same format. So they should work the same way.

Sometimes I wonder how these arguements come up...common sense is as rare as a super power these days.

I can certainly see where the ambiguity exists but I can't understand how someone can physically claim it is so. From what you're saying Deadshot if the rule is taken that way it basically makes taking any psychic tests agaisnt a tyranid army impossible. Now whilst some of GWs rules are a bit broken at times this would stand to be the most broken rule in all the heavens. Anyone who insists on playing it this way sounds more like a Tyranid player who is doing every possible last thing they can in order to win.

If something is cumulative it is generally stated in the entry, such as the psychic communion power for the GKs. I'm not going to say you are flat out wrong but its a very unsavoury position to look at the rule from.

No more broken than bypasing a psychic test altogether.

There are two camps here: Those for (Generally Nid players, but not exclusively) and Those against.

This isn't going to be resolved by simply sitting down and working it out like nice reasonable people, as this thread is dissolving into petty squabbles over similar rules. If you all feel that badly about it, write to GW: HQ In Nottingham UK, and ask them... and no, Don't as your friendly local staff member, as that won't cut it with anyone until the rule is amended.

The rule is ambiguous. I've asked people who don't have any connection to this hobby or anything similar, and even asked a School teacher, who have all given the same answer. It's too vague to be genuinely decided one way or another.

So peoples Hit GW with as many emails as possible, as browbeating each other just isnt going to resolve this.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:There are two camps here: Those for (Generally Nid players, but not exclusively) and Those against.

This isn't going to be resolved by simply sitting down and working it out like nice reasonable people, as this thread is dissolving into petty squabbles over similar rules. If you all feel that badly about it, write to GW: HQ In Nottingham UK, and ask them... and no, Don't as your friendly local staff member, as that won't cut it with anyone until the rule is amended.

The rule is ambiguous. I've asked people who don't have any connection to this hobby or anything similar, and even asked a School teacher, who have all given the same answer. It's too vague to be genuinely decided one way or another.

So peoples Hit GW with as many emails as possible, as browbeating each other just isnt going to resolve this.

It seems to me, you believe that all Nid players are for it stacking. Which is not true. I play Nids, and as much as I would like for it to stack, I in no reason believe it does. Of course, whether or not it stacks hardly matters for me, as none of the people I play with runs Psykers.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:There are two camps here: Those for (Generally Nid players, but not exclusively) and Those against.

This isn't going to be resolved by simply sitting down and working it out like nice reasonable people, as this thread is dissolving into petty squabbles over similar rules. If you all feel that badly about it, write to GW: HQ In Nottingham UK, and ask them... and no, Don't as your friendly local staff member, as that won't cut it with anyone until the rule is amended.

The rule is ambiguous. I've asked people who don't have any connection to this hobby or anything similar, and even asked a School teacher, who have all given the same answer. It's too vague to be genuinely decided one way or another.

So peoples Hit GW with as many emails as possible, as browbeating each other just isnt going to resolve this.

I am going to Nottenham in 2 weeks to isit Warhammer World. maybe I'll ask in person. I had some ideas I need to show them anyway. Mainly some propsed ideas from Dakka that I will ask them to look at.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:This isn't going to be resolved by simply sitting down and working it out like nice reasonable people,...

It could be, if those arguing that it should stack while other similar rules don't would actually take the time to explain why they think that.

If you all feel that badly about it, write to GW: HQ In Nottingham UK, and ask them...

Ignoring the fact that your letter wouldn't be seen by the people who actually write the rules, and so isn't going to accomplish anything useful, you seem to have rather misunderstood the purpose of this forum.

The rule is ambiguous.

It's really not. Particularly in light of all of the similar rules which have been discussed in the past with a reasonable consensus.

Happyjew wrote:It seems to me, you believe that all Nid players are for it stacking. Which is not true. I play Nids, and as much as I would like for it to stack, I in no reason believe it does. Of course, whether or not it stacks hardly matters for me, as none of the people I play with runs Psykers.

I did say generally lols, also it doesnt affect me either... but still I'd actually like to see a resolution to this, mainly because I'm going to start doing tourneys soon, and SITW will be definitely be a query I need resolving

Deadshot wrote:I am going to Nottenham in 2 weeks to isit Warhammer World. maybe I'll ask in person. I had some ideas I need to show them anyway. Mainly some propsed ideas from Dakka that I will ask them to look at.

Awesome, time to be nosey here... what are you going to show them?

hope it resolves this issue as well.

I think it's really cute that some players think that a 3 squad unit of Tyranid Warriors for 90 points can completely negate all psychic abilities within 12".

WH40k has a number of rules that are kind of loose. Looking for instances like this is just power gaming and WAAC at it's lowest. I wouldn't want to play with anyone who so firmly looked for ways to cheat.

Unreg1stered wrote:I think it's really cute that some players think that a 3 squad unit of Tyranid Warriors for 90 points can completely negate all psychic abilities within 12".

WH40k has a number of rules that are kind of loose. Looking for instances like this is just power gaming and WAAC at it's lowest. I wouldn't want to play with anyone who so firmly looked for ways to cheat.

cute? never heard it called that before...

I think it's awesome how many people come out of the woodwork web someone mentions SitW stacking, but are perfectly okay with all the hoods, runic weapons, etc. :-)

(when reading this - remember my stance on the stacking)

This is sort of like when I first started playing people told me I had to choose whether to use my Scything Talons or Rending Claws. (I was taught how to play Tyranids by people that didn't play Tyranids) Basically what they were saying was you have special weapon and close combat weapons, and you can only use one. So you either re-roll 1's to hit or you rend and your Claws and Teeth are your close combat weapon but you don't gain bonus attacks. (and then proceeded to tell me that Tyranids are broken)

Thankfully I read the FAQ and I could stack my affects. Tyranids are a weird army as I tell people playing Tyranids for the first time, (me) take your standard rulebook and throw it out the window. We override a lot of standard rules. (but I tell them if if you look at something I do I'll be able to show you how I override most rules)

I now have the chance to give back something I didn't have, I have 2 people I'm teaching how to play Tyranids, one who has just got into 40k. They have the chance to learn Tyranids from a guy who actively plays Tyranids. So if I am to teach them right, the slightest ambiguity has to be resolved. That is my stake in this conversation.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Deadshot wrote:I am going to Nottenham in 2 weeks to isit Warhammer World. maybe I'll ask in person. I had some ideas I need to show them anyway. Mainly some propsed ideas from Dakka that I will ask them to look at.

Awesome, time to be nosey here... what are you going to show them?

hope it resolves this issue as well.

This will definately be one thing I ask. Other things will be commonly asked questions from online, and some rules. I made Primarch rules last year and emailed it to the design team and they liked ethem, apparently, and I said that I would also send the Chaos Primarch's that I was working on. So thast would be one. Other things too.

Deadshot wrote:
This will definately be one thing I ask. Other things will be commonly asked questions from online, and some rules. I made Primarch rules last year and emailed it to the design team and they liked ethem, apparently, and I said that I would also send the Chaos Primarch's that I was working on. So thast would be one. Other things too.

Keep me/us posted, would love to know the outcome of all of that

Insaniaks is correct on all points. The only reason to think they could possibly stack is wishful thinking, and it's completely in contradiction to how rules with identical wording (like the Waaagh Banner) work.

AnUnearthlyChilde 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.

It says it right here in the rule (emphsis mine). A tryanid with SitW [singular]. If they wanted it to stack it would say EVERY tyranid with SitW. It also says AN extra dice [also singular]. If they wanted it to stack it would say "A extra die per tranid with SitW". Im not really sure why it sounds confusing to people. No part of this sentence indicates to me more than one.

Nicorex wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde 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.

It says it right here in the rule (emphsis mine). A tryanid with SitW [singular]. If they wanted it to stack it would say EVERY tyranid with SitW. It also says AN extra dice [also singular]. If they wanted it to stack it would say "A extra die per tranid with SitW". Im not really sure why it sounds confusing to people. No part of this sentence indicates to me more than one.

If you want to be anal about it, the word "Dice" is a plural, if they meant it to be singular they would have said "Die"

Dice is both singular and plural in the English language, and GW uses it as both.

Dice is a plural Noun, Die is the singular Noun

Page 2, you're wrong. Unless every dice roll is multiple dice.

rigeld2 wrote:Page 2, you're wrong. Unless every dice roll is multiple dice.

I suggest you pick up a dictionary and check the words meaning.

Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Page 2, you're wrong. Unless every dice roll is multiple dice.

I suggest you pick up a dictionary and check the words meaning.

I suggest you not bring up a dictionary definition when the word is defined clearly in the rulebook.

DeathReaper wrote:Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

Oxford english dictionary states:

dice: plural noun, singular die, verb, diced, dic·ing.
noun
1.
small cubes of plastic, ivory, bone, or wood, marked on each side with one to six spots, usually used in pairs in games of chance or in gambling.

Which a) is irrelevant b) against the tenets of this forum c) a pretty poor argument in general.

Tbh its well within the remits of the argument, as it was another person who decided to highlight certain words in an attempt to browbeat.

Also, I've said this countless times, if you want to prove one way or another who is right, contact GW: HQ and get them to change the FAQ. becuase until then this "argument" is just going to be "he said, she said" and browbeating.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

Oxford english dictionary states:

dice: plural noun, singular die, verb, diced, dic·ing.
noun
1.
small cubes of plastic, ivory, bone, or wood, marked on each side with one to six spots, usually used in pairs in games of chance or in gambling.

In warhammer 40k (and probably all games workshop games) they use "dice" as both the singular and the plural. DeathReaper is correct in this one. However I'd be interested if you can provide a single quote of any codex, FAQ or BRB where they use old term for a single dice - "die".

Nemesor Dave wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

Oxford english dictionary states:

dice: plural noun, singular die, verb, diced, dic·ing.
noun
1.
small cubes of plastic, ivory, bone, or wood, marked on each side with one to six spots, usually used in pairs in games of chance or in gambling.

In warhammer 40k (and probably all games workshop games) they use "dice" as both the singular and the plural. DeathReaper is correct in this one. However I'd be interested if you can provide a single quote of any codex, FAQ or BRB where they use old term for a single dice - "die".

That was my point in the first place, GW is inconsistent in their grammar, which leads to arguments like this to do with SITW. This thread has not been constructive in the slightest, and the issue itself has not been resolved or discussed peacefully.

I take objection to that.

Sorry but the whole thread has fallen into argument, IMO it should be closed as it is never going to be resolved this way.

Did you actually read the rest of that page I listed?

At the bottom you will find the quote. so your statement of

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Dice is a plural Noun, Die is the singular Noun

Is incorrect in modern standard English.

I read through the whole thread, and I do not see any hostility in anyones statements.

P.S. I was not browbeating, just handing out the required information.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Sorry but the whole thread has fallen into argument, IMO it should be closed as it is never going to be resolved this way.

Please explain why you think the ability stacks.
Reading the ability does not say it stacks.
The ability reads "a Tyranid" which does not imply stacking.
The word "dice" is both singular and plural, so does not imply stacking.

What's left?

I never mentioned hostility, I mentioned arguments.

the one thing that I am sure most people would agree with, is that the issue needs resolving at GW, not here. The SITW rule doesnt concern me currently as no one in my gaming circles uses GK's or similar... but, I honestly feel the grammar and structure of the FAQ SITW is dodgy, and needs simplifying.

my opinion is they should make SITW along the lines of Psychic scream in 4th ed Tyranids. but as thats wishful fanboyisms, it just isnt going to happen...

yeah, I dont know why people think it stacks... I mean where else does it say " when a blah is within blah you do blah" and we all agree it stacks?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never mentioned hostility, I mentioned arguments.

Welcome to YMDC.

the one thing that I am sure most people would agree with, is that the issue needs resolving at GW, not here. The SITW rule doesnt concern me currently as no one in my gaming circles uses GK's or similar... but, I honestly feel the grammar and structure of the FAQ SITW is dodgy, and needs simplifying.

I don't see an issue. Its only an issue if you read the rule incorrectly.

Firstly, I'm dyslexic. I'm sure I'm also not the only one out there who is either.

Secondly, as I stated previously, I have asked English teachers who play GW their interpretation, and they said it was ambiguous.

I'm not sure how being dyslexic matters...

And I disagree with those English teachers.

Dyslexia: any of various reading disorders associated with impairment of the ability to interpret spatial relationships or to integrate auditory and visual information.

So can impair the ability to comprehend sentence structure. And when something is badly structured to start with, it can further impair dyslexia.

Guys, can we just drop this untill it gets sorted out on the FAQ? I think one thing, so does Unearthly Child, while others think another. I will be using my interpretation untill someone says my interpretation.is wrong.

Someone I play against

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never mentioned hostility, I mentioned arguments.

Care to restate the above?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:This thread has not been constructive in the slightest, and the issue itself has not been resolved or discussed peacefully.

I think the thread has been discussed peacefully.

I also think the rules are clear and you roll AN extra dice.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Sorry but the whole thread has fallen into argument, IMO it should be closed as it is never going to be resolved this way.

The thread was doing fine until people started bringing up irrelevant arguments about dice.

The problem isn't the argument. It's the lack of it. Namely, the lack of a rational argument for the SitW stacking when other similar rules don't.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:the one thing that I am sure most people would agree with, is that the issue needs resolving at GW, not here.

The only reason the issue is not being 'resolved' here is that the people arguing that it should stack are making that claim without actually backing it up with any sort of logical reasoning for it.

If you're going to insist that it stacks, explain why. It's already been explained why it doesn't.

The wording was changed so it would stack with OTHER rules that also added dice to the test, not so that it would stack with itself.

I really have no idea how people get the idea that this means that the rules stacks dice per Tyranid.

I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

broodstar wrote:I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

Granted I agree, but the rules tend to not cover anything other than 1v1 games.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

broodstar wrote:I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

Granted I agree, but the rules tend to not cover anything other than 1v1 games.

then how would you play it in a doubles tourney or even Apocalypse games?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

broodstar wrote:I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

Granted I agree, but the rules tend to not cover anything other than 1v1 games.

then how would you play it in a doubles tourney or even Apocalypse games?

Neither of those is covered in the rules - so you'd have to come to an agreement beforehand or get the TO involved.

Doubles games and Apoc are far outside the normal rules.

Simple reading comprehension helps here. Does it say For each warrior with Shadow in the Warp? Nope...

Common DeathReaper, let my SitW stack! :-p

Seriously I've been playin Nids for years. There is no way it stacks with the current rules. If your in range of 143 nids with SitW, you are in range of a nid with SitW and thus add a dice to the roll.

There is no way it stacks with the current rules. If your in range of 143 nids with SitW, you are in range of a nid with SitW and thus add a dice to the roll.

+1 there.

"a" means "at least one". So if you have 29 tyranids with SitW in range there is "a tyranid" in range and SitW is triggered. This results in one extra dice to the roll.

I think the purpose of re-wording it os in the case of something else requiring 3d6 being rolled for a psychic test. Have no idea why, but the extra die instead of simply a 3d6 was probably.meant to clarify.

Runes of warding (think thats the right way round) was also reworded, as this was causing an issue with SitW previously. Now they play along quite happily (and incidentlaly work out exactly how I proposed they should work - roll 4D6, drop the highest, take the test on the remaining 3D6)

Witnessing is the Rune you're thinking of. Warding and SitW would never affect the same psyker outside Apoc or team games.

I can never remember the actual name, i just know it as the power that annoys the hell out of me