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.

Both ask you to roll 3d6 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

BeRzErKeR wrote:

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

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

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

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

Sounds good to me.

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

FlingitNow wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It really isnt any simpler than that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 out of 216 combinations or 14.8%

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

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

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

32 out of 216 combinations or 14.8%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my 2c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sliggoth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



Sliggoth

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

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

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

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

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


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


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



Sliggoth

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

That, shockingly, follows the RAW as well!

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

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

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


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

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



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



Sliggoth