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.

After rereading the eldar codex I have this further little tidbit:

"A farseer can use runes of warding to throw up psychic interference..."

So runes of warding are wargear, that give the farseer a continual passive psychic ability. Meaning that likely GW does mean for the powers to stack.



Similar to a piece of wargear that would let a psycher use a power a second time...the wargear is giving the psycher the power but it is a psychic power. Yes this makes eldar extremely powerful against psycher heavy armies, but its also a complete waste of points against most armies so GW may well have thought that balanced. They have made similar rulings in the past, the cheapness of the vastly more useful deff rolla for orks comes to mind.



Sliggoth

hmmm.. still don't think wargear stacks. Else... things like the Ork's Waaagh banners (+1 to WS) would stack too..

Is there other wargears out there that "stack"?

No, they dont stack because of the wording. "A unit with a waaagh banner gains +1WS" is satisfied exactly once if you have 1 or 100 waaagh banners

if you have 2 librarians with psychic hoods both in range of a psyker can one attempt to block the power if the other failed? no...why not because it specifies that it can't

dark eldar torment grenade launchers....enemy models within 6" of 1 or more vehicles with this upgrade suffer -1Ld

therefore if both runes of warding are in range (which they always are), why not "add an extra dice" because of farseer one, then "add an extra dice" for farseer two? nothing is telling you you can't whereas in those two examples both state they don't stack

Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.


Note that Psychic Power is bolded in the FAQ.. eldar psychic powers are guide,doom,mindwar, fortune, and Eldritch Storm. Runes of warding is wargear.

Runes of Warding reads: " A farseer can use runes of warding to throw up Psychic interference to hinder his foe." All fluff.. Just take it and elminate it from the equation.. no rules are to be derived from this. And the it goes on to read how actully Runes works. " All enemy psychic tests must be taken . . blah blah"

Runes of warding is not a Psychic power, its a piece of wargear.

We know that. Just pointing out that "stacking" seems to be the general rule, with specific rules needed to prevent it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:We know that. Just pointing out that "stacking" seems to be the general rule, with specific rules needed to prevent it.

Not that it matters because there is equal weight in this case, neither of the two interpretations are incorrect.

The action taker is the one with the RoW rule, and the ethical choice is to take the least advantageous of the two interpretations.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:We know that. Just pointing out that "stacking" seems to be the general rule, with specific rules needed to prevent it.

Not that it matters because there is equal weight in this case, neither of the two interpretations are incorrect.

The action taker is the one with the RoW rule, and the ethical choice is to take the least advantageous of the two interpretations.

yes and both have runes therefore both rules apply, all other rules state that they're only applied once when they could stack this does not, therefore it does

where is your evidence to say otherwise?

Hukoseft wrote:yes and both have runes therefore both rules apply, all other rules state that they're only applied once when they could stack this does not, therefore it does

where is your evidence to say otherwise?

Because there is noting that allows them to stack. (Permissive rule set says we must be allowed to do something, or we can not do it.))

3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.

If you are rolling 3D6 you are rolling an extra die and you fulfill the "Roll an extra die" for both of the RoW.

But It is ambiguous to say the least and I can see how it can be read either way.

and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."

so the army with RoW is the action taker and should take the least advantageous interpretation.

DeathReaper wrote:3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.

You keep saying that. I disagree.

"extra" means that there is a default die number. "Of course there is - Psychic tests are taken on Leadership, therefore 2d6."
So SitW "satisfies" the extra die from RoW? What about Runes of Witnessing?

They all say "Roll an extra die". If, somehow, a model was affected by both the eldar wargear and SitW, he would be taking a test on 5d6.
Using the opinion that "Roll an extra die" is satisfied by a 3d6 roll means that you would only roll 3d6 for a model in that situation.

Either they stack because they each add an extra die, or SitW, et al. satisfy the "roll an extra die."

Ruling in favour of allowing the 4d6 argument would set a dangerous precident for games, like apoc, that allow more than 2 HQ choices. I play eldar, and when I look at this particular interpretation of the rule all I can think is "bs". My argument would be against allowing this.

The only way I can see this being the intended interpretation is if Mat Ward wrote the Eldar codex

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.

You keep saying that. I disagree.

"extra" means that there is a default die number. "Of course there is - Psychic tests are taken on Leadership, therefore 2d6."
So SitW "satisfies" the extra die from RoW? What about Runes of Witnessing?

They all say "Roll an extra die". If, somehow, a model was affected by both the eldar wargear and SitW, he would be taking a test on 5d6.
Using the opinion that "Roll an extra die" is satisfied by a 3d6 roll means that you would only roll 3d6 for a model in that situation.

Either they stack because they each add an extra die, or SitW, et al. satisfy the "roll an extra die."

Disagree all you want that does not make it any less true.

They say "Roll an extra die" This means "Roll one extra die" the statements are synonymous.

Normally you roll 2D6, by rolling 3d6 you have satisfied the "an extra die" portion of both rules.

It comes down to questions in a situation like this:

1) Player 1 tries to cast a psychic power (Does he have a psyker that allows psychic powers to be cast? If yes go to 2)
2) Does player 2 have anything to stop the casting of said psychic power? (If yes go to 3)
3) what is the effect of Player 2's rules? (They make Player 1 roll an extra die when casting psychic powers, he has two such rules in range, now that we know the effect of the rules we go to 4)
4) Player 1 needs to roll an extra die when casting psychic powers, normally he tests on 2D6, two rules tell us Player 1 needs to Roll an extra die when casting psychic powers, so we check and see if Player 1 is rolling an extra die. we see that Player 1 is rolling 3D6, which is an extra die, and we see that both rules are satisfied.(go to 5)
5) we roll a psychic test on 3D6

So SitW makes RoW pointless?
And RoWi make you invulnerable to RoWa?

Edit: or does RoWa make RoWi useless? Not just cancel it out - your ruling would make one or the other not apply, but the other one would.

Rules cancel out other rules all the time.

Psychic hoods sometimes make Psychic powers pointless but they both apply.

But as I have said before:

It is ambiguous to say the least and I can see how it can be read either way.

and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."

so the army with RoW is the action taker and should take the least advantageous interpretation.

Seeing as how RoWa affect my opponent and only when my opponent is rolling for Psychic tests, I would argue, that my opponent would have to be the action taker. I'm just forcing him to roll extra dice. However, HE is the one taking action.

With the change in wording in the faq from a hard cap "3d6" to an open ended "extra die", what was the purpose of this errata if not to allow them to stack?

Aimed at DeathReaper, since he seems to be spearheading the "No" camp. Just playing DA.

I think the reason they changed all the abilities to just an extra d6, is so SitW/RoWa and RoWi could stack. Before, all three abilities stated to roll 3d6 and then we were left to figure out how SitW worked with RoWi.

Happyjew wrote:Seeing as how RoWa affect my opponent and only when my opponent is rolling for Psychic tests, I would argue, that my opponent would have to be the action taker. I'm just forcing him to roll extra dice. However, HE is the one taking action.

and your argument would be incorrect.

The action taker is the player with the rule, since you have a rule that forces them to roll an extra D6.

It is a passive ability, but the one forcing the rule on the other player is the "Action Taker" because without that rule there is nothing extra needed on the part of the player rolling the dice.

Also, I am not in the NO camp, I am in the "It is ambiguous" camp, and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."

culsandar wrote:With the change in wording in the faq from a hard cap "3d6" to an open ended "extra die", what was the purpose of this errata if not to allow them to stack?

No one, but the people that changed the wording, knows why they changed the wording.

If there are Runes of Witnessing and SitW, the Seer rolls 4d6, dropping the highest. Why wouldn't they just roll 3d6, as that already satisfies the extra d6?

nosferatu1001 wrote:We know that. Just pointing out that "stacking" seems to be the general rule, with specific rules needed to prevent it.

"Stacking" only applies to Psychic powers cast multiple times on the same unit as the FAQ states.

It does not apply to any other general rules..

Stacking does not apply to wargear. Cite evidence where it has in the past.

Two Dire Avenger Catapults being Assault 4
Two Death Spinners being Assault 4

Both cases where two of one piece of wargear (weapon) have stacked shots instead of being two seperate weapons.

DeathReaper wrote:

Hukoseft wrote:yes and both have runes therefore both rules apply, all other rules state that they're only applied once when they could stack this does not, therefore it does

where is your evidence to say otherwise?

Because there is noting that allows them to stack. (Permissive rule set says we must be allowed to do something, or we can not do it.))

3D6 fulfills the "Roll an extra die" on both of the RoW.

If you are rolling 3D6 you are rolling an extra die and you fulfill the "Roll an extra die" for both of the RoW.

But It is ambiguous to say the least and I can see how it can be read either way.

and "If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice."

so the army with RoW is the action taker and should take the least advantageous interpretation.

it satisfies it for the first seer yes, as they have added an extra dice....however the other seer has not therefore the requirements of that seers wargear have not been fulfilled....go take a logic class, if you have two things that make you roll an extra dice you add an extra dice for each wargear that makes it happen

you say there is equal evidence both ways yet you are unable to provide any evidence other than your illogical statement that it has been fulfilled, what other evidence do you have? go ahead convince me I'm wrong....I dare you


yes psychic hood makes powers pointless occassionally and they both apply....so both runes should apply

it is NOT ambiguous....add an extra dice(seer one done....makes it 3d6)...oh look seer 2 has it too....add an extra dice(seer 2 done.....makes it 4d6) how ambiguous is that?

concerning the 'reason' needed to change runes of warding from a hard 3d6 to add an extra dice.....there was no reason other than to make it stack, there was already an faq regarding runes of wit vs runes of ward, and there is nothing else that interacts with it in a similar way

ergo RAW and RAI(by my pov) it does stack....still waiting on evidence proving me wrong, oh P.S talking at my apoc game yesterday they all agreed it does stack, and that anyone who abused it would be slapped hard

I'm not gonna play it this way but this is how I see it:

1) Psyker attempts to cast power
2) Farseer 1 Runes of Warding Triggered; roll 3d6 for test
3) Farseer 2 Runes of Warding Triggered; roll 4d6
4) Take Test
5) Beat up Eldar player

DeathReaper wrote:Rules cancel out other rules all the time.

You're not advocating canceling out. You're advocating one piece of wargear overriding another.
SitW would mean the RoWi does nothing, or RoWi means SitW does nothing - how do you resolve which one wins?
Also RoWi vs RoWa?

Talk about ethics all you want - insinuate that I'm doing something bad by saying they stack.
Your interpretation causes more problems than it solves.

Despite playing Eldar, and throwing lots of pints into Jetbike Seer Councils I would say no to stacking, even though yes the rules allow it to stack. however I would like to play those pesky Space Marine Uber-Psykers like Mephiston and Grey Knight Libbys who for so long have been shutting down my farseers with Hoods and stupidly good rolls,

When I started playing Eldar I thought that Warlocks needed to take psychic checks to cast their powers... I hated the guts out of librarians back then!

Actually I love RoW and for 15 points its a steal

Avatar 720 wrote:Two Dire Avenger Catapults being Assault 4
Two Death Spinners being Assault 4

Both cases where two of one piece of wargear (weapon) have stacked shots instead of being two seperate weapons.

However both of these effects are explained in the codex. They tell you exactly what you can do. 4 shots.. There it is in black and white. The RoW has no such explanation, or additional FAQ. GW does not even call the these extra shots from the Exarch “stacking” so I don’t believe we can make the assumption that they are, or apply an ambiguously written FAQ apply to wargear, number of shots, or anything else you can think of except “psychic powers cast multiple times on the same unit”.

If RoW was a Psychic power then you would have a case.

Remember its a permissive rules set. If it doesn't say it, you can't make it up.

Another part of the whole problem is GW never explains to us what "Stacking" is , does, when or how it is applied.

What if my point of view was you must roll 3d6 for each farseer in play (pass a test twice if I have 2 farseers)
or you must roll 6d6 if i have two farseers in play. Maye 6d6 twice... (not that im advocating either of these) Both in my view have been stacked.

Why would you be limiting it to 4d6.

Cheers

I'm not limiting to 4d6. If you have 3 RoW that's 5d6. Add in a SitW and it's 6d6.

The permission is in the rules. Each one adds an extra die. The onus is on you to provide a rule saying they don't stack.

Adding 1d6 satisfies the Rolling an extra die, on both RoW's

Player 1 is about to cast a psychic power.

Player 2 says I have these rules called RoW which makes you roll an extra die on your psychic test, both RoW say this.

Player 1 picks up 3D6 and the 1d6 extra satisfies the add an extra die for both RoW.

This is where we have to ask the Question, is player 1 Rolling an extra die?
A: Yes

Q: Are both rules satisfied by Rolling an extra die?
A: Yes, as they say to Roll an extra die, and Player 1 is "Rolling an extra die"

DeathReaper wrote:Adding 1d6 satisfies the Rolling an extra die, on both RoW's

Player 1 is about to cast a psychic power.

Player 2 says I have these rules called RoW which makes you roll an extra die on your psychic test, both RoW say this.

Player 1 picks up 3D6 and the 1d6 extra satisfies the add an extra die for both RoW.

This is where we have to ask the Question, is player 1 Rolling an extra die?
A: Yes

Q: Are both rules satisfied by Rolling an extra die?
A: Yes, as they say to Roll an extra die, and Player 1 is "Rolling an extra die"

no they don't....this is where your logic is failing, you're only rolling an extra dice, but there are two sources causing you to roll extra dice, you are only satisfying one source, you need to satisfy the other source by rolling an extra dice on top of the extra dice already added

if two people say they are going to give you an apple, you receive one apple, have both of them given you an apple? no therefore a requirement has not been met yet

Camarodragon wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Two Dire Avenger Catapults being Assault 4
Two Death Spinners being Assault 4

Both cases where two of one piece of wargear (weapon) have stacked shots instead of being two seperate weapons.

However both of these effects are explained in the codex.

Not the point, you asked for an example of where Wargear stacks, I gave you one. It doesn't matter whether or not GW used the exact word, the shots stacked to form one Assault 4 weapon.

As for your permissive ruleset argument, GW haven't said that the Autarch's Master Strategist rule stacks either, they have only said that they would play it is if they do. An FAQ is how GW would play under certain circumstances, and they are not rules themselves; Master Strategist has not been errata'd to use the word 'stack' anywhere, and yet the official interpretation is that they do.

If we use your argument, GW are wrong by playing that Master Strategist adds +0 to +2 to the reserve roll, since they do not state that it stacks in the rule and thus, using this permissive ruleset, they do not.