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.

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.