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.

Please Read: Due to the unprecedented length of this thread, and the heated discussion contained inside, I must ask that people wishing to participate make a note of these three FAQs before doing so, since they are somewhat important:

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.”

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

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

Thank you for reading, and try and keep any further discussion civil!

With the new FAQ, i've seen a lot of people saying that two lots will stack, forcing enemy psykers to use 4D6. I haven't, however, seen nearly as many posts rebutting this, and since I play Eldar, it could impact me later on for whatever reason (perhaps a doubles game with my and another Eldar player).

The argument i've heard for it is that they're both distinct items of wargear on different models, and not a collective special rule (like SitW), with no restriction on the effects stacking and ambiguous wording, as well as having nothing like "if an enemy psyker is affected by Runes of Warding..." like SitW does, which would render a second lot of runes redundant.

The argument i've heard against is that whilst they're seperate pieces of wargear on seperate models, they are both the same item, and do not stack for that reason and the reason that they are not given permission to stack, as well as not having a clause such as "...for each Runes of Warding...". I've also heard the argument that since they are plural, it already portrays multiple runes affecting the model, but I question that argument due to the fact that it does not deal directly with any sort of rule.

I'm honestly leaning towards the 'For' argument, for obvious reasons, but after trying to argue that viewpoint, I was met with harsh criticism (which to me was quite unnecessary, since some of it felt quite venomous and seemed to imply that I was a cheating bastard for just suggesting it), and left me thinking if arguing 'For' would be a waste of time in future, and whether I should go 'Against' just to avoid arguments.

Obviously i'd prefer more of a reason than that, so if someone could explain it to me, either why I am right or why I am wrong, using the internet's emotionless tone to try and come across in a civil way whilst still addressing the point, then i'd be grateful.

I haven't really seen this argued (for or against), however, (and I know that this holds no weight here, just throwing out for completeness sake), the INAT FAQ, clarified that they do not stack. I generally only 1 run Farseer anyway, so this has yet to come up in my games.

Happyjew wrote:I haven't really seen this argued (for or against), however, (and I know that this holds no weight here, just throwing out for completeness sake), the INAT FAQ, clarified that they do not stack. I generally only 1 run Farseer anyway, so this has yet to come up in my games.

iirc INAT clarified that before the recent Errata - so they might want to re-examine.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:I haven't really seen this argued (for or against), however, (and I know that this holds no weight here, just throwing out for completeness sake), the INAT FAQ, clarified that they do not stack. I generally only 1 run Farseer anyway, so this has yet to come up in my games.

iirc INAT clarified that before the recent Errata - so they might want to re-examine.

Just checked the INAT FAQ, and it's in red, which means it's new. That or someone did not fix the faq accordingly.

They would not stack. The rules for Runes of Warding state clearly the procedure for using Rune of Warding. If someone follows those rules they have satisfied the requirement for Rune of Warding as a whole.

If RoW stated you roll an extra die, not just 3D6 then you could argue it stacks.

The reason you probably got lashed at for suggesting it is because most players already consider Runes of Warding EXTREMELY powerful for it's meager 15pts. Forcing a 4D6 check for 30pts of upgrade would be downright broken.

BlueDagger wrote:They would not stack. The rules for Runes of Warding state clearly the procedure for using Rune of Warding. If someone follows those rules they have satisfied the requirement for Rune of Warding as a whole.

If RoW stated you roll an extra die, not just 3D6 then you could argue it stacks.

The reason you probably got lashed at for suggesting it is because most players already consider Runes of Warding EXTREMELY powerful for it's meager 15pts. Forcing a 4D6 check for 30pts of upgrade would be downright broken.

You mean the errata that says "roll an extra die" and not "roll 3d6"?

As for INAT - I hadn't noticed they updated it - apologies Happyjew. I disagree with it and think they stack, unlike SiTW.

BlueDagger wrote:They would not stack. The rules for Runes of Warding state clearly the procedure for using Rune of Warding. If someone follows those rules they have satisfied the requirement for Rune of Warding as a whole.

If RoW stated you roll an extra die, not just 3D6 then you could argue it stacks.

The reason you probably got lashed at for suggesting it is because most players already consider Runes of Warding EXTREMELY powerful for it's meager 15pts. Forcing a 4D6 check for 30pts of upgrade would be downright broken.

That is exactly what the new FAQ states.

This is what I wanted to avoid really, nobody having any solid argument either way.

I've explained my side to a few and they agreed that when they saw it my way, I could well be correct, but I don't know how to get my viewpoint across to people who are far too stubborn to see anyone having a different opinion as little more than a rules lawyer.

I can see where they come from, but I believe that my argument is better, they come up with excuses that they believe invalidate my argument, and simply state that i'm wrong with nothing to back it up.

I also tried the Autarch Master Strategist argument, stating that it does stack despite no wording in the rule and no errata to add wording to it. They argued that it wasn't Runes of Warding, and therefore cannot be used to suggest RoWa stacks. They also argued that it was FAQ'd and RoWa wasn't, and rejected the idea that they simply missed FAQing it.

So, they seem to be rejecting any and all evidence that shows my viewpoint has basis both in the rules and in the codex, and merely arguing that since I have no evidence [that they are choosing to accept as such], my argument is invalid, despite them having even less.

I have just looked at the FAQ and I believe they do stack since each farseer is seperate and each rune makes them roll an extra dice. It did not state one or more like it does for psychic hoods.

With the latest errata, they clearly do stack.

However, that makes them incredibly powerful. So, IMO, this is a case of either:

A) GW not realizing what they were doing and making a mistake.
B) GW intentionally buffing Eldar to make them a counterbalance to GK.

I think A is more likely, so I wouldn't take advantage of this "exploit".

Grakmar wrote:With the latest errata, they clearly do stack.

However, that makes them incredibly powerful. So, IMO, this is a case of either:

A) GW not realizing what they were doing and making a mistake.
B) GW intentionally buffing Eldar to make them a counterbalance to GK.

I think A is more likely, so I wouldn't take advantage of this "exploit".

I disagree, the way it was before a lot of people would still pass the test easily on 3d6 and after that Eldar have no other psychic defenses. Shutting down psychic powers hardly stops any of the current armies (including gk) from still being able to kick ass.

bagtagger wrote:I have just looked at the FAQ and I believe they do stack since each farseer is seperate and each rune makes them roll an extra dice. It did not state one or more like it does for psychic hoods.

That's one of the points of my argument, that despite both Runes having the same name and effect, they are seperate entities existing on seperate, individual models.

Their counter was that they are the same thing and they don't explicitly state that they stack, and that if they do stack, they want a model with Furious Charge that joins a unit that confers Furious Charge onto itself when a certain condition is met, to get +2 Strength and +2 Initiative, since they don't state that they do not stack.

I argued that it is not the same, since a single model would have 2 of the same special rule, and since they already have it, they cannot gain it again. They said that that doesn't matter, and could not provide evidence as to why.

I could also show them the part about Psychic Powers stacking unless stated otherwise in their rules, lending further strength to my argument, but that would likely be dismissed because RoWa are not psychic powers.

Grakmar wrote:With the latest errata, they clearly do stack.

However, that makes them incredibly powerful. So, IMO, this is a case of either:

A) GW not realizing what they were doing and making a mistake.
B) GW intentionally buffing Eldar to make them a counterbalance to GK.

I think A is more likely, so I wouldn't take advantage of this "exploit".

As much as I do think it's a mistake on GW's part, and the fact that two Farseers at levels where I can afford them is worse than a Farseer + an Autarch so I won't be using them, I can't help but disagree about taking advantage of an "exploit".

It's an official change in the rules, and all I am doing is following them, to not do that would be in itself breaking the rules. If GW directly change the rules, then I am obligated to follow them, the same as when Necron players used Scarab Conga Lines before their FAQ. It was seen as a legal tactic because they were simply following the rules, I don't see how this is much different.

See now, I wanna play in an Apocalypse game. Take 10 Farsers at 90 points a pop (after choosing a psychic power). Bam! All enemy psykers are testing on 14d6. Not sure how they will roll below a 10 now.

Happyjew wrote:See now, I wanna play in an Apocalypse game. Take 10 Farsers at 90 points a pop (after choosing a psychic power). Bam! All enemy psykers are testing on 14d6. Not sure how they will roll below a 10 now.

And that's why it's reccomend that you talk things over before starting an Apoc game - because there's nothing stopping the other side from doing the same.

BTW, I would never actually do this. It's already hard enough to find people to play with, without being that guy

No matter how many farseers are there, you only roll 1 more die than normal.

This is because rolling 3d6 satisfies the "Roll an extra die" in the RoW rules. You are rolling an extra D6 when you roll 3D6.

An rolling a 4th D6 also satisfies "an extra die", since it is an extra one on top of the 3D6.

If it said "rolls 1 more die than normal" then it'd work your way, but "an extra die" isn't a cap in an of itself, since every die after it will be "an extra die".

Yes, you are rolling "an extra die" when you roll 3D6, but you're also rolling "an extra die" when you roll 4D6, or 5D6. RoWa 1 adds an extra die, making it 3D6, then RoWa 2 adds an extra die to the 3D6, making it 4D6.

So two ways to read it, GW Strikes again!

They seem to both fulfill the condition of "an extra die".

When in doubt take the least advantageous option.

Psychic powers not from the same source were clarified as indeed stacking, so why not psychic defences?

*facepalm* I see the FAQ now... greaaat GW.. greaaat.

While it's about a 70% sure they would stack now, you are goign to have a REALLY hard sell with a TO to allow it. It's not 100% clear that they do stack so it would come down to a TO choice. Most will have a hard time swallowing a 4D6 perils on 12+ test for enemy psykers regardless of location on the board.

Nope, I'm allowing it.

To arbitrarily decide some things dont stack, when there is no FAQ contradicting it, seems unsafe.

If only you were a regular at my GW and FLGS, Nos

nosferatu1001 wrote:Psychic powers not from the same source were clarified as indeed stacking, so why not psychic defences?

Because there is noting that allows them to stack.

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

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

Bottom line ask your TO, or discuss it with your group before hand.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Psychic powers not from the same source were clarified as indeed stacking, so why not psychic defences?

Because there is noting that allows them to stack.

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

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

Bottom line ask your TO, or discuss it with your group before hand.

Which is more than the people I argued with seemed to be able to do.

Seeing how ambiguous it is, i'm happy to simply D6 it before the game (choosing the least advantageous option is subjective, since 3D6 is the least for me, whereas 4D6 is the least for my opponent; why should I have to shoulder the disadvantage?) but to them there was no question about it; they believed wholeheartedly that I was wrong and was simply being a Rules Lawyer, with no willingness to accept any sort of compromise.

That's really what sparked me to post this thread, as I wasn't sure if it was as clear cut as they insist it is. Now I know that it is far from clear, and they're simply being stubborn.

Avatar 720 wrote:Seeing how ambiguous it is, i'm happy to simply D6 it before the game (choosing the least advantageous option is subjective, since 3D6 is the least for me, whereas 4D6 is the least for my opponent; why should I have to shoulder the disadvantage?) but to them there was no question about it; they believed wholeheartedly that I was wrong and was simply being a Rules Lawyer, with no willingness to accept any sort of compromise.

That's really what sparked me to post this thread, as I wasn't sure if it was as clear cut as they insist it is. Now I know that it is far from clear, and they're simply being stubborn.

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

I would say there is equal weight in this case, neither of the two interpretations are incorrect.

The action taker is the one with the RoW rule.

From this article:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Thanks but no thanks, a D6 roll gives two interpretations of equal weight an equal chance (which is more ethical than one interpretation being 'wrong' for no real reason, in my opinion) instead of one being automatically wrong simply because it was the interpretation of the person who brought it up.

On the forum, it's a fine way of suggesting how to deal with it, but i'm going to suggest a D6 roll in any games (if we did it the way the article suggests, my Farseer will always roll 3D6, since I dislike the redundancy of 2 RoWa farseers and so only use 1, and rolling 3D6 goes against my interpretation so i'm more than happy to chance it being 4D6) where the issue arises.

Play it how you want, but the ethical choice is to take the least advantageous of the two interpretations.

I concur with Deathreaper on all points. Eldar are my first army and first love, but I can't see asking people to roll 4d6.

I thought that certain psyker powers could "stack"...

However, Rules of Warding isn't a pysker power... it's a wargear.

I can't see having 2 farseers means that you'd have to take a psyhic test on 4D6.

Disclaimer: I play DE and Orks, so it really doesn't bother me...

Also, I don't see THAT much a differences per se in rolling 3D6 vs 4D6. One farseer typically does shut down the opposition.

whembly wrote:

However, Rules of Warding isn't a pysker power... it's a wargear.

.

My thoughts +1