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.

Hi all. On a game the other day, my mate claimed I couldn't use Fateweaver's reroll on the new Tzeentch Warpstorm table, cause it is named differently. Is this legit, or bull? I was using the Daemonic Incursion Detachment, so would this extend to the +1/-1 too? The book says if your warlord is a Daemon of Tzeentch, you may roll on the Tzeentchian table, nothing about not getting the reroll for the trait etc. All advice much appreciated. To clarify, the Lord of Unreality trait is what was giving me the (claimed) reroll, not the staff.

Best Samii.

They are different tables so the rules don't share

I'm of the opinion that yes you can reroll and +/-1 it. Reason is that you replace the results of the warpstorm for those of the Tzeentch table. It is still the warpstorm rule.

Well you definitely can't use the Incursions +1/-1 as that specifically says its for the Warp Storm table in Codex: Chaos Daemons (even giving the page number)

Also you need to find rules support showing that they are the same thing. As written they are separate warp storm rules and you use the Tzeentch one INSTEAD

 CrownAxe wrote:
Well you definitely can't use the Incursions +1/-1 as that specifically says its for the Warp Storm table in Codex: Chaos Daemons (even giving the page number)

Also you need to find rules support showing that they are the same thing. As written they are separate warp storm rules and you use the Tzeentch one INSTEAD

It states that table because the other one didn´t exist at time of print.

Common sense would be to clarify with opponent/TO before using the new table to stop confusion?