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.

rigeld2 wrote:Page 2, you're wrong. Unless every dice roll is multiple dice.

I suggest you pick up a dictionary and check the words meaning.

Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Page 2, you're wrong. Unless every dice roll is multiple dice.

I suggest you pick up a dictionary and check the words meaning.

I suggest you not bring up a dictionary definition when the word is defined clearly in the rulebook.

DeathReaper wrote:Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

Oxford english dictionary states:

dice: plural noun, singular die, verb, diced, dic·ing.
noun
1.
small cubes of plastic, ivory, bone, or wood, marked on each side with one to six spots, usually used in pairs in games of chance or in gambling.

Which a) is irrelevant b) against the tenets of this forum c) a pretty poor argument in general.

Tbh its well within the remits of the argument, as it was another person who decided to highlight certain words in an attempt to browbeat.

Also, I've said this countless times, if you want to prove one way or another who is right, contact GW: HQ and get them to change the FAQ. becuase until then this "argument" is just going to be "he said, she said" and browbeating.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

Oxford english dictionary states:

dice: plural noun, singular die, verb, diced, dic·ing.
noun
1.
small cubes of plastic, ivory, bone, or wood, marked on each side with one to six spots, usually used in pairs in games of chance or in gambling.

In warhammer 40k (and probably all games workshop games) they use "dice" as both the singular and the plural. DeathReaper is correct in this one. However I'd be interested if you can provide a single quote of any codex, FAQ or BRB where they use old term for a single dice - "die".

Nemesor Dave wrote:

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Because there is a fundamental disagreement of the usage of Die Vs. Dice:

"Historically, dice is the plural of die, but in modern standard English dice is both the singular and the plural: throw the dice could mean a reference to either one or more than one dice."

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dice?q=Dice

Oxford english dictionary states:

dice: plural noun, singular die, verb, diced, dic·ing.
noun
1.
small cubes of plastic, ivory, bone, or wood, marked on each side with one to six spots, usually used in pairs in games of chance or in gambling.

In warhammer 40k (and probably all games workshop games) they use "dice" as both the singular and the plural. DeathReaper is correct in this one. However I'd be interested if you can provide a single quote of any codex, FAQ or BRB where they use old term for a single dice - "die".

That was my point in the first place, GW is inconsistent in their grammar, which leads to arguments like this to do with SITW. This thread has not been constructive in the slightest, and the issue itself has not been resolved or discussed peacefully.

I take objection to that.

Sorry but the whole thread has fallen into argument, IMO it should be closed as it is never going to be resolved this way.

Did you actually read the rest of that page I listed?

At the bottom you will find the quote. so your statement of

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Dice is a plural Noun, Die is the singular Noun

Is incorrect in modern standard English.

I read through the whole thread, and I do not see any hostility in anyones statements.

P.S. I was not browbeating, just handing out the required information.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Sorry but the whole thread has fallen into argument, IMO it should be closed as it is never going to be resolved this way.

Please explain why you think the ability stacks.
Reading the ability does not say it stacks.
The ability reads "a Tyranid" which does not imply stacking.
The word "dice" is both singular and plural, so does not imply stacking.

What's left?

I never mentioned hostility, I mentioned arguments.

the one thing that I am sure most people would agree with, is that the issue needs resolving at GW, not here. The SITW rule doesnt concern me currently as no one in my gaming circles uses GK's or similar... but, I honestly feel the grammar and structure of the FAQ SITW is dodgy, and needs simplifying.

my opinion is they should make SITW along the lines of Psychic scream in 4th ed Tyranids. but as thats wishful fanboyisms, it just isnt going to happen...

yeah, I dont know why people think it stacks... I mean where else does it say " when a blah is within blah you do blah" and we all agree it stacks?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never mentioned hostility, I mentioned arguments.

Welcome to YMDC.

the one thing that I am sure most people would agree with, is that the issue needs resolving at GW, not here. The SITW rule doesnt concern me currently as no one in my gaming circles uses GK's or similar... but, I honestly feel the grammar and structure of the FAQ SITW is dodgy, and needs simplifying.

I don't see an issue. Its only an issue if you read the rule incorrectly.

Firstly, I'm dyslexic. I'm sure I'm also not the only one out there who is either.

Secondly, as I stated previously, I have asked English teachers who play GW their interpretation, and they said it was ambiguous.

I'm not sure how being dyslexic matters...

And I disagree with those English teachers.

Dyslexia: any of various reading disorders associated with impairment of the ability to interpret spatial relationships or to integrate auditory and visual information.

So can impair the ability to comprehend sentence structure. And when something is badly structured to start with, it can further impair dyslexia.

Guys, can we just drop this untill it gets sorted out on the FAQ? I think one thing, so does Unearthly Child, while others think another. I will be using my interpretation untill someone says my interpretation.is wrong.

Someone I play against

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:I never mentioned hostility, I mentioned arguments.

Care to restate the above?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:This thread has not been constructive in the slightest, and the issue itself has not been resolved or discussed peacefully.

I think the thread has been discussed peacefully.

I also think the rules are clear and you roll AN extra dice.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:Sorry but the whole thread has fallen into argument, IMO it should be closed as it is never going to be resolved this way.

The thread was doing fine until people started bringing up irrelevant arguments about dice.

The problem isn't the argument. It's the lack of it. Namely, the lack of a rational argument for the SitW stacking when other similar rules don't.

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:the one thing that I am sure most people would agree with, is that the issue needs resolving at GW, not here.

The only reason the issue is not being 'resolved' here is that the people arguing that it should stack are making that claim without actually backing it up with any sort of logical reasoning for it.

If you're going to insist that it stacks, explain why. It's already been explained why it doesn't.

The wording was changed so it would stack with OTHER rules that also added dice to the test, not so that it would stack with itself.

I really have no idea how people get the idea that this means that the rules stacks dice per Tyranid.

I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

broodstar wrote:I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

Granted I agree, but the rules tend to not cover anything other than 1v1 games.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

broodstar wrote:I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

Granted I agree, but the rules tend to not cover anything other than 1v1 games.

then how would you play it in a doubles tourney or even Apocalypse games?

AnUnearthlyChilde wrote:

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

broodstar wrote:I agree with D's interpretation, that the rule has been changed so that it will have a stacking affect, but not within the same army. For example: in a 2v2 game, if a Librarian wishes to do a psychic test and it is within 12" on 2 Tyranids from 2 differant armies now that test is taken on 4D6.

Granted I agree, but the rules tend to not cover anything other than 1v1 games.

then how would you play it in a doubles tourney or even Apocalypse games?

Neither of those is covered in the rules - so you'd have to come to an agreement beforehand or get the TO involved.

Doubles games and Apoc are far outside the normal rules.

Simple reading comprehension helps here. Does it say For each warrior with Shadow in the Warp? Nope...

Common DeathReaper, let my SitW stack! :-p

Seriously I've been playin Nids for years. There is no way it stacks with the current rules. If your in range of 143 nids with SitW, you are in range of a nid with SitW and thus add a dice to the roll.

There is no way it stacks with the current rules. If your in range of 143 nids with SitW, you are in range of a nid with SitW and thus add a dice to the roll.

+1 there.

"a" means "at least one". So if you have 29 tyranids with SitW in range there is "a tyranid" in range and SitW is triggered. This results in one extra dice to the roll.

I think the purpose of re-wording it os in the case of something else requiring 3d6 being rolled for a psychic test. Have no idea why, but the extra die instead of simply a 3d6 was probably.meant to clarify.