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.

It states One Use Only

does this mean I can only take one per army or one per character (not that 2 would do them any good)

I'm guessing I can only have one scouting or Mining character.

Just checking because I've never played dwarfs before or seen this rune taken.

One per army is how I'd read it

2 ways to determine the rule:
1. What are the general rules for runes? Are all of them able to be taken repeatedly?
2. Are there item specific rules to THAT rune?

From playing around in Army Builder(not that that means the rules are true) it appears that runic items may have the same rune as another item in the army, provided the two items are not exact duplicates. So you could take 2 runes of Brotherhood provided one of the talismans also had another rune on it that was different than those on the first.

One Use only means that, once you have used it during the game, thats it - it cannot be used again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:One Use only means that, once you have used it during the game, thats it - it cannot be used again.

That is true. However not all "One Use Only" items are "One Per Army", which is a very different rule.


Dwarfs Codex, pg. 43:
No more than one item may carry the same combination of runes.
Master runes may only be used once per army and only one master rune per item.
Rune of Brotherhood is not a master rune, therefore may be taken on more than one
character so long as the other talisman has some difference from the first in keeping with the
Rule of Pride.
Rune of Brotherhood is also NOT "One use only".

Yep, which is why I didnt mention anything to do with one per army.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yep, which is why I didnt mention anything to do with one per army.

I was mainly aiming that at the OP who asked if it could be taken twice. I know better than to argue with you Nos.

Nah, always argue with me. Im quite rusty on 8th ed

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nah, always argue with me. Im quite rusty on 8th ed

8th edition and the game in general now all boils down to 1 rule and fact:
Steadfast, not a single thing negates it. Flank charged by a horde? No problem if you are in bus formation.

One rule to rule them all, one rule to bind them.

True, but very few buses will remain as such when flanked as they will take many casualities if its a proper combat unit.

Few main combat units can also claim to be a steadfast wall.

Aerethan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nah, always argue with me. Im quite rusty on 8th ed

8th edition and the game in general now all boils down to 1 rule and fact:
Steadfast, not a single thing negates it. Flank charged by a horde? No problem if you are in bus formation.

One rule to rule them all, one rule to bind them.

Being in a wood negates steadfast. A lot of people forget this. Although also makes skirmishers steadfast.

khsofsos wrote:

Aerethan wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nah, always argue with me. Im quite rusty on 8th ed

8th edition and the game in general now all boils down to 1 rule and fact:
Steadfast, not a single thing negates it. Flank charged by a horde? No problem if you are in bus formation.

One rule to rule them all, one rule to bind them.

Being in a wood negates steadfast. A lot of people forget this. Although also makes skirmishers steadfast.

While that isn't a useless rule, it is one that would only very rarely come up.

Steadfast is a good idea, don't get me wrong. But it needs to be balanced. There needs to be an answer to it other than "my bus is longer than your bus". Flank charges by 10 RnF infantry or 5 Cavalry negating it would work, and it would promote people doing supporting charges instead of just relying on the bus formation to win. Failed fear tests should negate it(fear needs a boost, and this one wouldn't be game breaking).

My personal hate with steadfast is front rank counting so after my big scary monster has eaten through a block the helpless 5 men at front tie me up. Yes it's all about picking combats and support but it's really stupid sometimes. I like the idea of a failed fear test.

Aerethan wrote:Flank charges by 10 RnF infantry or 5 Cavalry negating it would work, and it would promote people doing supporting charges instead of just relying on the bus formation to win.

Ugh. To a some degree, I understand your frustration with steadfast, though I tend to see a lot more horde formation than deep formations these days. But letting 5 cav remove steadfast puts a crazy amount of power into the hands of mounted character units. In 7th, these kind of units would just explode through everything without slowing down. I know you want an adjustment, but I think your suggestion has unintended consequences.

Yeah, we don't want Steadfast to be too easily negated. Otherwise we end up with the 7th edition scenerio of 5 knights breaking a unit of 100 State Troops just because they got a flank charge.

I do think things like Monsters should have a rank bonus. Maybe Monsters count as having 2 ranks for the purposes of determining Steadfast.

I think also that units in the flank should count as having one additional rank then they actually have. So a Monster in the Flank would be 3 ranks. 5 Cavelry would be 2 ranks. and so on.

i just thought it would be cool to take a dwarf army with a character with my rangers and a character with my miners. Glad I could generate some discussion