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

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.

DeathReaper wrote:

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.

DeathReaper wrote:

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?

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?

That was done to prevent conflict with RoW

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..

jgehunter wrote:

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:

jgehunter wrote:

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.

The reason I said that was that the errata for Eldar was for the previous SitW - so it made no sense to carry on using it.

DR....where is your evidence to support your statement of ambiguity? I can take this down to the university and ask my logic professor if you'de like?

Try it this way:

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

Edit: hyv3mynd explained it nicely

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.

hyv3mynd wrote:Try it this way:

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'

Here is your evidence.

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.

@hukoseft: Last time I checked 40K was not in the least bit logical....... just sayin..

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.

Edit: Best leave this one alone I suppose.

Double Edit: I haven't read this entire thread; has someone already mentioned that this question is answered in the INAT FAQ?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp

◊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].

mgraham wrote:Edit: Best leave this one alone I suppose.

Double Edit: I haven't read this entire thread; has someone already mentioned that this question is answered in the INAT FAQ?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp

It's been brought up. That ruling was made before the change to the faq, when it used to just be 3d6.

culsandar wrote:

mgraham wrote:Edit: Best leave this one alone I suppose.

Double Edit: I haven't read this entire thread; has someone already mentioned that this question is answered in the INAT FAQ?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/inat_faq.jsp

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 INAT FAQ page, it says:

INAT FAQ v5.1 (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.

Ok, and? INAT is not an official source.

Happyjew wrote:Ok, and? INAT is not an official source.

I think he was looking at a How would you play it angle.