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.

So in the new Space Wolves FAQ, it says..

"The third sentence of the Runic Weapon rule should be replaced with the following: 'Furthermore, a model with a runic weapon adds 1 to Deny the Witch rolls.' "

When we look at the rules for Runic Weapons, the 3rd sentence says "A runic weapon is a force weapon". That's it.

So they get +1 to DtW and/or can nullify powers used within 24" on a flat 4+ at the cost of no longer being a force weapon?

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
So in the new Space Wolves FAQ, it says..

"The third sentence of the Runic Weapon rule should be replaced with the following: 'Furthermore, a model with a runic weapon adds 1 to Deny the Witch rolls.' "

When we look at the rules for Runic Weapons, the 3rd sentence says "A runic weapon is a force weapon". That's it.

So they get +1 to DtW and/or can nullify powers used within 24" on a flat 4+ at the cost of no longer being a force weapon?

I think that will be reworded quickly. I'd say it's not intended at all, but to remove the 4+ 24"

 Vector Strike wrote:

 Marius Xerxes wrote:
So in the new Space Wolves FAQ, it says..

"The third sentence of the Runic Weapon rule should be replaced with the following: 'Furthermore, a model with a runic weapon adds 1 to Deny the Witch rolls.' "

When we look at the rules for Runic Weapons, the 3rd sentence says "A runic weapon is a force weapon". That's it.

So they get +1 to DtW and/or can nullify powers used within 24" on a flat 4+ at the cost of no longer being a force weapon?

I think that will be reworded quickly. I'd say it's not intended at all, but to remove the 4+ 24"

Well until when/if it gets readdressed, I am correct in my reading, yes?. They seem to get both.

Also, as I said in another thread, they removed the FAQ saying that you can attempt to nullify OR deny, but cant do both. So until when/if this gets addressed, is that particular topic up for discussion again too?

I want to know if the DTW stacks with each weapon, as of right now citing page 13's Basic versus Advance rule Its a global DTW that effects the denial of blessing right?

DTW doesn't stack with the Runic Weapon. It's either/or. So if in 24", Runic Weapon kicks in and can shut stuff down 1/2 half the time everytime. Outside of that, not quite as good of a chance, but still a little boost to antipsyker defense. If they bothered to FAQ, I don't think they would've screwed up that bad to mean the 4th sentence. So yeah, Runic Weapons still rule!

 Grey elder wrote:
I want to know if the DTW stacks with each weapon, as of right now citing page 13's Basic versus Advance rule Its a global DTW that effects the denial of blessing right?

I doubt it.

Pg 26 from the rule book, the paragraph right above the Psychic Hoods box.
"If none of your units were the target of the enemy's psychic power (...) you can still attempt to Deny the Witch. To do so, follow the same process, but apply no modifiers to your dice rolls - you require rolls of 6 to nullify Warp Charge points."

yeah, they clearly meant it as the 4th sentence. I doubt they would do Furthermore, Furthermore...

what a bummer

Yes but the modifiers are listed above it. Which excpicitly state what modifiers are for DTW. I would say runic weapons, unless FAQed again work with blessings.

That is the question right? Does it count with the can't use modifiers, blessings and such, part of the DtW rolls.

Codex does supersede rulebook but does this apply here or just on the modifiable DtW rolls?

Also, does it stack? "a model with a runic weapon adds 1 to the DtW rolls."

The 24" 4+ is gone and this "Furthermore..." has replaced it. And it would still be a Force Weapon in this case.

 Dugg wrote:
That is the question right? Does it count with the can't use modifiers, blessings and such, part of the DtW rolls.

Codex does supersede rulebook but does this apply here or just on the modifiable DtW rolls?

Also, does it stack? "a model with a runic weapon adds 1 to the DtW rolls."

The 24" 4+ is gone and this "Furthermore..." has replaced it. And it would still be a Force Weapon in this case.

In DTW section, it shows us the three modifiers,
Psyker+1
Higher Mastery Level +1
Adamantium Will +1

DTW for a blessing or other powers that don't target you, can be denied but you cannot apply modifiers.

Unless they FAQ it to say runic weapons counts as a modifier, they are separate and work against blessings and such.

The more important issue is, since it tells us to follow the same process to deny a blessing. There is no target unit, therefore can we DTW at all? Logic would tell us to just select one of our own units to DTW with. I could then pick my ruin priest.

Does it modify the dice roll needed to DTW? Yes. Then it is a modifier, and what does the BRB say about modifiers?

chanceafs wrote:
Does it modify the dice roll needed to DTW? Yes. Then it is a modifier, and what does the BRB say about modifiers?

It does NOT modify the DtW needed. It adds 1 to the roll. You still need a 6 to DtW on blessings but the Runic Weapon "Adds 1 to your DtW rolls" so...

Good lord really. Njal, and rune priests no longer have a 24 inch deny anything. They deny blessings on a 6 , deny maledictions and the such targeting them with the set modifiers. Njal gets a plus two. That is all.

chanceafs wrote:
Does it modify the dice roll needed to DTW? Yes. Then it is a modifier, and what does the BRB say about modifiers?

The rule says that modifiers are additions, subtraction, multiplications and set values to 'Characteristics".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:
Good lord really. Njal, and rune priests no longer have a 24 inch deny anything. They deny blessings on a 6 , deny maledictions and the such targeting them with the set modifiers. Njal gets a plus two. That is all.

The FAQ says to replace the third line, so they still have 24" nullify, but are no longer force weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dugg wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Does it modify the dice roll needed to DTW? Yes. Then it is a modifier, and what does the BRB say about modifiers?

It does NOT modify the DtW needed. It adds 1 to the roll. You still need a 6 to DtW on blessings but the Runic Weapon "Adds 1 to your DtW rolls" so...

By that logic they are, because the modifiers in the Rulebook give +1 to the rolls so a 5 becomes a 6. That would be the same as a runic weapon lol.

it's pretty clear that they are meaning to swap the 4th, one Furthmore,... for the new Furthermore,... one.

It is still a Force Weapon and no 24" 4+ deny

 Dugg wrote:
it's pretty clear that they are meaning to swap the 4th, one Furthmore,... for the new Furthermore,... one.

It is still a Force Weapon and no 24" 4+ deny

Nobody knows that your interpretation is what they meant as what they have written is replace the 3rd sentence.

I believe what they meant when they say Run is D6 for Beast what they really meant was Run was 6+2D6 and you get to fly

 PotentiallyLethal wrote:

 Dugg wrote:
it's pretty clear that they are meaning to swap the 4th, one Furthmore,... for the new Furthermore,... one.

It is still a Force Weapon and no 24" 4+ deny

Nobody knows that your interpretation is what they meant as what they have written is replace the 3rd sentence.

I believe what they meant when they say Run is D6 for Beast what they really meant was Run was 6+2D6 and you get to fly

So your smart-ass comment aside. You think the new Runic Weapon Rule is:

Fluff sentences.... Furthermore, a model with a runic weapon adds 1 to Deny the Witch rolls. Furthermore, whenever an enemy model succeeds on a Psychic test within 24" of the bearer, roll a dice - on the roll of a 4+ that power is nullified. A runic weapon always wounds Daemon models on the roll of a 2+. This special ability has no effect on vehicle models.

You think they meant to have two Furthermore sentences in that same paragraph? What rule is that first Furthermore proceeding? How do you think they work together?

Let us use some common sense here. Would they add a second "furthermore" with a new rule that bring into questions how it affects the second, older, furthermore sentence? Come on guys.

I am not happy about the 24" 4+ being replaced but I am not going to be in denial about it either.

 Dugg wrote:
it's pretty clear that they are meaning to swap the 4th, one Furthmore,... for the new Furthermore,... one.

It is still a Force Weapon and no 24" 4+ deny

You can house rule it that way between you and your friends, even between your opponent if they agree. But as it stands, runic weapons are not force weapons, and now can nullify within 24" and get +1 to DTW rolls.

I agree with you that RAI it's not meant to be like that. The FAQ says Njals staff is a runic weapon(stave), implying that runic weapons are force weapons. GW make stupid mistake in all their FAQ, to clear up the TH/SS with CML problem, they FAQed it to exchange power fist and storm bolter for TH/SS. That mean that sergeants can only have power weapon and storm bolter. No more full TH/SS termi squads for DA

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 Dugg wrote:
it's pretty clear that they are meaning to swap the 4th, one Furthmore,... for the new Furthermore,... one.

It is still a Force Weapon and no 24" 4+ deny

You can house rule it that way between you and your friends, even between your opponent if they agree. But as it stands, runic weapons are not force weapons, and now can nullify within 24" and get +1 to DTW rolls.

I agree with you that RAI it's not meant to be like that. The FAQ says Njals staff is a runic weapon(stave), implying that runic weapons are force weapons. GW make stupid mistake in all their FAQ, to clear up the TH/SS with CML problem, they FAQed it to exchange power fist and storm bolter for TH/SS. That mean that sergeants can only have power weapon and storm bolter. No more full TH/SS termi squads for DA

Agreed, and my money is that it will be changed. If GW does not change it soon all the TOs of the Major Events will add to their FAQs that the 24" 4+ is gone, swapped for the adds 1 to DtW roll. Many have already stated that.

...but all that said, only time will tell. This is just one small disappointment in the long list of ill worded changes from them. Nothing new here.

I would rather lose the force weapon part. Ruin priest are not going to be very useful in close combat anyway, so having a superior DTW ability is better. On a 4+ any power within 24" is down. Then if you are DTW +1 for the runic weapon, +1 for being a psyker. That will stop lots of psychic powers, not to mention if you have a higher mastery level.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
I would rather lose the force weapon part. Ruin priest are not going to be very useful in close combat anyway, so having a superior DTW ability is better. On a 4+ any power within 24" is down. Then if you are DTW +1 for the runic weapon, +1 for being a psyker. That will stop lots of psychic powers, not to mention if you have a higher mastery level.

Sorry, the rules don't cater to what you want

It's very obvious this is a typo. Anyone who looks at the entry can see that. Even if it is strictly RAW no one is going to play it that way.

Typo or not, a FAQ has changed a rule. If you don't like it, make a house rule. If not you are breaking the rules to suit you, and that my friend is an act of cheating.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Typo or not, a FAQ has changed a rule. If you don't like it, make a house rule. If not you are breaking the rules to suit you, and that my friend is an act of cheating.

So last edition, did your MCs not have Relentless and Smash then?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Typo or not, a FAQ has changed a rule. If you don't like it, make a house rule. If not you are breaking the rules to suit you, and that my friend is an act of cheating.

So last edition, did your MCs not have Relentless and Smash then?

I'm not following what you mean?

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
Typo or not, a FAQ has changed a rule. If you don't like it, make a house rule. If not you are breaking the rules to suit you, and that my friend is an act of cheating.

So last edition, did your MCs not have Relentless and Smash then?

I'm not following what you mean?

In 6ed FMCs (previous type on my part) had the comma between relentless and smash missing so they actually had the Relentless Smash rule instead of relentless and smash. As a result by strict RAW they couldn't move and shoot heavy weapons and their attacks in CC weren't ap2 and they had a special rule that doesn't exist.

Did you play 6ed like that?

I never even knew about that lol but yes I did play FMC as AP 2 in close combat. If I ever know about that, my brother and our friend would have agreed that there was a comma there, and house rule so to say.

Mmmm. You'll see instances on dakka where people feel its pretty obvious the intent (Via weighing up the evidence) at some point it tips into most people just feel its a mistake. Much like when *some army memory fail* didn't have to disembark from drop pods because a FAQ removed the line about immediately disembarking. Thought this is more evident by the fact the paragraph now no longer makes sense. Like smash rule, so obvious some people don't question it. This is one of those times.

Since the world doesn't work in black and white while the majority of rules RAI is more of a dodgy subject, when the evidence & likelihood is this strong I would er caution around assuming this would not cause arguments outside a pre spoken FLGS setting, of course, most people will not care at all.

Problem people might have with this thread is agreeing that it wasn't intended, then suggested if people didn't play it that way they were just cheating. I think there's a much clearer line here than say flying beasts.

If anyone is concerned how people think of it, or the how it's likely to be ruled in a tournament then HIWPI Polls are good for that.

I only mentioned cheating, under the circumstances of you knowing the issue and not discussing with your opponent, and just using the rules how you feel they should be played. Your opponent my feel cheated if his big multi-wounded model gets force weapon, then sees the FAQ.

You see where I am going with this.

 IXLoiero95XI wrote:
I only mentioned cheating, under the circumstances of you knowing the issue and not discussing with your opponent, and just using the rules how you feel they should be played. Your opponent my feel cheated if his big multi-wounded model gets force weapon, then sees the FAQ.

You see where I am going with this.

Yes it can potentially lead to a uncomfortable position either way.

FWIW, there clearly was a lack of editing in the FAQ. The "Leaders of the Pack" (pg 81) rule is corrected in the exact same way in both the Amendments AND the Errata - just one example.

RAW, yes, they goofed up and made runic weapons into monsters against enemy psykers while less-effective in cc. But I don't know anyone who'd ever bother to play a second time against someone who played like that.