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.

Cool now what if you have 2 banners with 2 runes each where the a standard wording is absent.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
FINALLY GOT MY DORF BOOK.

I'm going to sidestep this lawyerly. Though I changed my opinion once.

*************************
The Runes don't stack.

Why?

Because the text for the increase value is for putting the Rune on the same item. I think that much is clear.

As for why each one doesn't take of D6:

...foes charging a unit including A standard bearing A Rune of Slowness

A standard.
A Rune.
Charging a unit with 50 standards with 1-3 Runes each, is still charging a standard. It doesn't limit you to charging one or you could never charge multiple standards.

If you score 3 goals and are asked if you scored a goal, you can answer yes. You can go further and say I scored 3. But you still did score "a" goal.

e.g.,
-Unit has 3 Standards with Runes of Slowness.
-Enemy Charges
-Did you charge a foe with a standard with a Rune of Slowness? Yes/No (clearly yes, even though there are 3. The first sentence therefore satisfies all the standards.)
-If Yes, Subtract D6....

It doesn't say they are additive, or multiplicative, or numerous standards.

I tend to agree with you, but to play devil's advocate...

Why would you not "check twice" so-to-speak? And then resolve the effects of each check? As in...

I'm charging that unit. Are there any magic items that trigger? Yeah, there's one. Resolve its effect. Now, are there any OTHER magic items that trigger. Oh, yeah, there's another one. Resolve its effect. Any others? No? Ok, resolve the charge.

Meaning, why wouldn't both items go off separately?

Because then the language is wrong.

You subtract D6 from the charge distance. If you rolled twice you would be subtracting 2D6. And the banner never tells you to do that.

Any foes charging a unit including a standard....

The underlined portion is 1-to-infinite. It is actually comes out to a boolean expression. I.e., yes/no. It has to be as I said previously or if you had 2 banners, nothing at all would happen. Meaning if A only meant singular, as in one, if you put in 2 banners of slowness, absolutely nothing would happen because you wouldn't be charging A standard with A rune in a unit.

So the question is: is the enemy charging a dwarf unit with a banner that has A rune of slowness? Yes it is. Follow steps 1 and 2 and 3 if you purchased that much on a single banner.

But steps 2 & 3 as you call them are not connected to step 1 and do not contain the a banner wording...

A unit with a waaagh banner (40k) adds +1ws. This is true if you have one banner or ten, you add one was

Here your unit indeed has a banner, with one rune, so you subtract one d6. You cannot subtract 2d6 for two banners, as you have not complied with the rule

I agree Duke.

If you have rolled a single D6, then you have satisfied the requirement for every single individual standard in the unit that holds a single Rune of Slowness.

If it had said, "For each standard bearing a Rune of Slowness," the cumulative argument would have a case.

Honestly, I don't think they purposefully meant to exclude it because they didn't think of it at all. But the fact they didn't think of it gives us a bit of language you can RAW the hell out of to exclude it.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if this WASN'T the case, then having TWO banners with ONE rune each would actually be better than having ONE banner with TWO runes, right? One banner would cause the opponent to roll 2d6 pick the highest, while two banners would cause the opponent to roll 2d6 and pick them both.

And if I'm understanding that right, then that would make no sense.

And so I'm assuming that if you have two banners in a unit, one with a single rune and the other with two runes, you would ONLY do the effect of the banner with the most runes, right?

Yes, that is what happens - no cheaping out, no getting double benefits, etc.

 Tangent wrote:
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if this WASN'T the case, then having TWO banners with ONE rune each would actually be better than having ONE banner with TWO runes, right? One banner would cause the opponent to roll 2d6 pick the highest, while two banners would cause the opponent to roll 2d6 and pick them both.

And if I'm understanding that right, then that would make no sense.

And so I'm assuming that if you have two banners in a unit, one with a single rune and the other with two runes, you would ONLY do the effect of the banner with the most runes, right?

If you REALLY wanna TFG the RAW (and I know you don't, you're just the devil's advocate here,) you could probably claim that you have both a banner with one rune, and a banner with two runes. While Duke's logic for two banners with one rune (or two banners with two runes) cannot be disputed unless you disregard linear logic, it could (by TFG) be argued that the different amount of runes make the banners completely different entities with separate rules from each other. Of course then you have to start looking at the logic of the rune's rules. If you have both "roll a d6 and subtract it from the charge distance" and "roll 2 d6 and subtract the highest from the charge distance" Then you're arguing that they are not stacking, but will both take effect after each other. I guess the counter point would be that when describing the second rune, the army book doesn't call it a "2 rune standard" or something, but makes it a further development on the first rune, which means Duke's logic takes effect again, where we're talking about A banner fulfilling the criteria that is then built upon. It's messy, but I can't really imagine playing against a person that was to argue that.

Sorry but people are lumping in the two banners with two runes into the two banners with 1 rune argument yet the wording is entirely different. So explain why 2 banners with 2 runes each wouldn't both individually function using the language from the 2 runes rule (unless you're claiming a banner with 2 runes minuses d6" and 2d6" pick the highest).

So, question for the people who say it neither stacks or works cumulatively - how do you calculate a unit with one rune on the bsb, 2 runes on the unit standard? You are arguing based on wording which doesn't exist for the 2 or 3 rune description. By these arguments, such a unit will be better protected than a 2x 2 runes unit - one will count as having 2 runes, the other is making 2 checks, neither conflicting so subtracts highest of 2D6+D6. There is no argument preventing that if they are not stacked per unit but instead per banner, as the checks only look for another single/double rune. I propose this is absurd.

Eyjio wrote:
So, question for the people who say it neither stacks or works cumulatively - how do you calculate a unit with one rune on the bsb, 2 runes on the unit standard? You are arguing based on wording which doesn't exist for the 2 or 3 rune description. By these arguments, such a unit will be better protected than a 2x 2 runes unit - one will count as having 2 runes, the other is making 2 checks, neither conflicting so subtracts highest of 2D6+D6. There is no argument preventing that if they are not stacked per unit but instead per banner, as the checks only look for another single/double rune. I propose this is absurd.

If I have rolled two dice from the instruction of the 2xRoS, then I have de facto already rolled one dice, thereby satisfying the requirement from 1xRoS.

Eyjio wrote:
You are arguing based on wording which doesn't exist for the 2 or 3 rune description.

There is no wording for 2 or 3 runes. You do not charge a 2 rune banner. You charge a 1 rune banner which also has a 2nd rune. Nowhere in the text does it say you charge a banner with 2 runes. It says you charge

a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness

After that, it starts:

a second rune means...

But to get to a second rune, you had to first charge "a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness." Otherwise the effects for 2nd and 3rd runes aren't tied to any actions whatsoever. They could never be activated.

DukeRustfield wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
You are arguing based on wording which doesn't exist for the 2 or 3 rune description.

There is no wording for 2 or 3 runes. You do not charge a 2 rune banner. You charge a 1 rune banner which also has a 2nd rune. Nowhere in the text does it say you charge a banner with 2 runes. It says you charge

a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness

After that, it starts:

a second rune means...

But to get to a second rune, you had to first charge "a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness." Otherwise the effects for 2nd and 3rd runes aren't tied to any actions whatsoever. They could never be activated.

So if I have a 3 runes of might, I cumulatively stack the strength for the second and third tier? If not, this doesn't work as the argument for only applying the banner once is the same for a rune - it doesn't have A rune, it has 2.

Saldiven wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
So, question for the people who say it neither stacks or works cumulatively - how do you calculate a unit with one rune on the bsb, 2 runes on the unit standard? You are arguing based on wording which doesn't exist for the 2 or 3 rune description. By these arguments, such a unit will be better protected than a 2x 2 runes unit - one will count as having 2 runes, the other is making 2 checks, neither conflicting so subtracts highest of 2D6+D6. There is no argument preventing that if they are not stacked per unit but instead per banner, as the checks only look for another single/double rune. I propose this is absurd.

If I have rolled two dice from the instruction of the 2xRoS, then I have de facto already rolled one dice, thereby satisfying the requirement from 1xRoS.

So your argument is that a 2D6 roll is functionally equivalent in the rules to rolling a single D6 twice? So, say, I can reroll any D6 in a 2D6 if I have permission to reroll one? If not, this interpretation doesn't make sense.

Eyjio wrote:
So if I have a 3 runes of might, I cumulatively stack the strength for the second and third tier? If not, this doesn't work as the argument for only applying the banner once is the same for a rune - it doesn't have A rune, it has 2.

The rules for 2nd tier (there is no 3rd) tell you exactly what to do. And the generic rules for runes #5 tells you how to handle it. You can't take multiple weapons that I know. If you take Runic Weapons, even Slayers lose the ability to have 2 of them.

Eyjio wrote:
So your argument is that a 2D6 roll is functionally equivalent in the rules to rolling a single D6 twice?

No, no one said that.

Wow the rune of fury is much better than I thought. Potentially 16 attacks from a Dwarf Lord. Wow. Or should we instead follow the rules rather than adding the previous tier rune effects to the one we are at...

 DukeRustfield wrote:

Eyjio wrote:
So if I have a 3 runes of might, I cumulatively stack the strength for the second and third tier? If not, this doesn't work as the argument for only applying the banner once is the same for a rune - it doesn't have A rune, it has 2.

The rules for 2nd tier (there is no 3rd) tell you exactly what to do. And the generic rules for runes #5 tells you how to handle it. You can't take multiple weapons that I know. If you take Runic Weapons, even Slayers lose the ability to have 2 of them.

Eyjio wrote:
So your argument is that a 2D6 roll is functionally equivalent in the rules to rolling a single D6 twice?

No, no one said that.

Got my runes mixed, meant rune of cleaving. Both are fairly useless regardless, but your interpretation still leaves stacking. Also, he did imply that as 2 runes is a 2d6 roll not a D6, which is the requirement for 1 rune so he's saying they are equivalent.

Again #5 in the runes basics covers Cleaving. It states the Rune tells you what to do (basically).

Some runes at higher tiers will say combines the previous tier. Like Rune of Slowness. Cleaving doesn't say that. It tells you exactly what it does at the 3rd tier.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Again #5 in the runes basics covers Cleaving. It states the Rune tells you what to do (basically).

Some runes at higher tiers will say combines the previous tier. Like Rune of Slowness. Cleaving doesn't say that. It tells you exactly what it does at the 3rd tier.

So now we combine tiers? Wow, rune of slowness tier 3 is broken as hell I roll D6, 2D6 and another 2D6 and take then all. Then you get asl if you still somehow make it. Yeah... RoS doesn't combine anything.

It says it combines the previous effects at 3 runes. Which was a 2D6. The 2nd rune DOESN'T say combine the previous effects. So the D6 is never used.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
It says it combines the previous effects at 3 runes. Which was a 2D6. The 2nd rune DOESN'T say combine the previous effects. So the D6 is never used.

Okay, so it's not combined at 2 runes and your original argument fails. You can't say it combines for the first rune in terms of a restriction then say it doesn't in terms of effect.

If we want to keep pressing it, I'm working on a nuclear option.

The controlling player controls sequencing per the BRB. The charge distance is determined by rolling 2D6+M. At that point the controlling player is faced with 2 banners. He can choose which one to face, as it's his turn and he controls sequencing. If he chooses 1 rune, it has the text of subtracting D6 and what happens if you don't make contact (failed charge), which is back on p. 19 of the BRB.

If the D6 isn't sufficient to make a failed charge, the BRB says the unit has reached the target and made a successful charge.

By use of sequencing you have completely bypassed the 2nd banner and faced the weaker of the two.

That really isn't how sequencing works if the first d6" doesn't make a failed charge (in fact even if it does) you still have to resolve the other interrupt before checking for success.

Eyjio wrote:

 DukeRustfield wrote:
It says it combines the previous effects at 3 runes. Which was a 2D6. The 2nd rune DOESN'T say combine the previous effects. So the D6 is never used.

Okay, so it's not combined at 2 runes and your original argument fails. You can't say it combines for the first rune in terms of a restriction then say it doesn't in terms of effect.

Why does his original argument fail? I'm having trouble following your reasoning, here.

If there's one rune, do this.

If there are two runes, do that.

If there are three runes, do everything, and also, do this.

So let's say there are 3 runes. We look at rune 1, which says to do something. Then we look at rune 2, which says "hey, forget what rune 1 says, and do this (more powerful) thing instead." Then, because of rune 3, we also add the bonus effect.

I have to admit, my biggest problem with this whole argument is that I'm having trouble coming up with a way to explain all of this to my gaming group, even though I agree.

Because of what you said. Why don't you "check twice." There are without a doubt 2 items there.

My original logic was to block 2 banners of 1 (which you can't even do). It works fine if that was the case.

The problem isn't 2 banners of 1, it's 2 banners of 3 runes and 1 or 2. A magic BSB with 3 runes and a magic standard with 1 .

In some ways they are mutually-exclusive but they also overlap. I mean if you have a 2 rune banner, it doesn't even say you're charged by the enemy. It makes references to the first rune but overwrites PART of the sentence (D6).

My way out of it was to wash my hands and say, all of this has to happen in some linear order.

Here is 3 + 1 runes:
1. Charge
2. The banner says the foe calculates charge
3. BRB says 2D6+M
4. 3 Banner says do 2 Banner which is subtract from roll
4. 1 Banner says subtract from roll
(4 both occur after 3. Since it is "same time" owning/charging player chooses order)
4.1. Roll die/dice for whichever banner is chosen
4.2. Next sentence in Banner is to see if charge failed.
4.3. BRB tells you if you didn't fail charge, you have succeeded--you are in combat
xxx. The other 4 never gets acted on. You either have successfully reached combat or failed the charge.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Because of what you said. Why don't you "check twice." There are without a doubt 2 items there.

My original logic was to block 2 banners of 1 (which you can't even do). It works fine if that was the case.

The problem isn't 2 banners of 1, it's 2 banners of 3 runes and 1 or 2. A magic BSB with 3 runes and a magic standard with 1 .

In some ways they are mutually-exclusive but they also overlap. I mean if you have a 2 rune banner, it doesn't even say you're charged by the enemy. It makes references to the first rune but overwrites PART of the sentence (D6).

My way out of it was to wash my hands and say, all of this has to happen in some linear order.

Here is 3 + 1 runes:
1. Charge
2. The banner says the foe calculates charge
3. BRB says 2D6+M
4. 3 Banner says do 2 Banner which is subtract from roll
4. 1 Banner says subtract from roll
(4 both occur after 3. Since it is "same time" owning/charging player chooses order)
4.1. Roll die/dice for whichever banner is chosen
4.2. Next sentence in Banner is to see if charge failed.
4.3. BRB tells you if you didn't fail charge, you have succeeded--you are in combat
xxx. The other 4 never gets acted on. You either have successfully reached combat or failed the charge.

Except that is all made up. The check for charge is done after the roll for charge. Both these banner interrupt the roll for charge. Here is 3 + 1 runes:
1. Charge
2. The banner says the foe calculates charge
3. BRB says 2D6+M
4. 3 Banner says do 2 Banner which is subtract from roll
4. 1 Banner says subtract from roll
(4 both occur after 3. Since it is "same time" owning/charging player chooses order)
5 Check if charge was successful
4.1. Roll die/dice for whichever banner is chosen
4.2 Roll die/dice for other banner
5 Total charge result and check for success.

By your logic of interrupts not interrupting even the first banner wouldn't work as after rolling the first charge you check fir success/failure so if the runes can't interrupt that check as you contest then neither works.

There's competing ambiguities here:

a) do the runes from the different banners STACK,

b) do the runes from the different banners OVERLAP, or

c) does only one banner take effect.

I think you can easily make a reasonable argument for any of the three, and there isn't really any clear indication in the book for which one is the best. This seems to be another one of those instances where the wording is quite simply ambiguous, and how it will operate is something that you need to discuss with your opponent or TO.

Personally, I think that the best compromise position is that the runes stack, but don't overlap. So having two on the standard and one on the BSB is the same as having three of the same rune on either. Having a fourth confers no benefit.

Well the latter is the explained one already - you have a banner with 2 runes in the unit, and you have a banner with two rune in the unit. The rules only ask about "a" banner, whjich in this case is the same as asking for "1 or more" banners

Well the latter is the explained one already - you have a banner with 2 runes in the unit, and you have a banner with two rune in the unit. The rules only ask about "a" banner, which in this case is the same as asking for "1 or more" banners

Do you mind providing a quote for that because I don't see that present in the rules for 2 slowness runes or the general rules for runes or banners. So do you mind telling me where that wording is (in relation to 2 banners with 2 runes each).