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.

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.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/433713.page

EDIT:
Also, would laud hailers stack according to either side of this argument? <---this is actually a really interesting question.

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.

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

Yep, you're right, it's not official.

I'm going to quote from the "History of the INAT FAQ" page (http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/The_History_of_the_INAT_FAQ):

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.

But this is a precedent for not stacking.. sorry

I would tell an Eldar player to shove it if he thinks he gets to make me use 4D6 for psychic powers in a standard game.

If he's going to be TFG and trying to make my psychic powers unusable, I'm going to be TFG and not roll 4d6.

Yeah, because using psychic defense is being TFG.

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, because using psychic defense is being TFG.

No, trying to read the poorly written rules to abuse it for an advantage that makes psychic powers unusable is being TFG.

Making me roll 3d6 is fine. 4d6 is being TFG.

Whatever you say boss.
It'd be great if you could offer a rules argument as to why it's not 4d6.

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.

Which precedent is that ?

Camarodragon wrote:

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.

Magpie wrote:Which precedent is that ?

Defend.

Also, 40k is a permissive rule set, it doesn't say you can stack the runes like that, so you can't.

Really now.

Crazyterran wrote:Also, 40k is a permissive rule set, it doesn't say you can stack the runes like that, so you can't.

Really now.

It's a permissive rules set. It says "add an extra dice" and then again "add an extra dice". Permission granted. They stack.

Now prove they don't.

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.

RoWa says to add an extra dice. There are two sets of RoWa, therefore two directives to add an extra dice.

Now find permission to ignore the second one.

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.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Camarodragon wrote:

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.. ??

rigeld2 wrote:RoWa says to add an extra dice. There are two sets of RoWa, therefore two directives to add an extra dice.

"And no directive to add 2. The RoWa have been fulfilled."

That was how I initially read it, and the way the only person I know that plays with them reads it.

I get why you read it otherwise, but . . . yea.

kirsanth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:RoWa says to add an extra dice. There are two sets of RoWa, therefore two directives to add an extra dice.

"And no directive to add 2. The RoWa have been fulfilled."

That was how I initially read it, and the way the only person I know that plays with them reads it.

I get why you read it otherwise, but . . . yea.

Then, how would you interpret RoWa vs RoWi or SitW? Do you roll 3d6 and discard the highest?

Grakmar wrote:Then, how would you interpret RoWa vs RoWi or SitW? Do you roll 3d6 and discard the highest?

SitW/RoWi is another rule.
RoWa overlaped itself.

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.

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.

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 […]”.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170015a_Space_Wolves_FAQ_Version_1_2_January_2012.pdf

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.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170009a_Eldar_FAQ_Version_1_1_January_2012.pdf

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.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170016a_Tyranid_FAQ_Version_1_1_January_2012.pdf

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.

"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.