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.

DeathReaper wrote:
You must roll an extra die for Row #1, You must roll an extra die for Row #2
If you are rolling an extra die you simultaneously fulfill both questions of "are you rolling an extra die"

No, you haven't.

You must roll an extra die. There is nothing that tells you what to reference as "base".

You still haven't addressed which ability wins if there are multiple on the table.
With your interpretation, if both abilities are present one must win. There's not basis for that.
With your interpretation, you must select one of them to win. I'd love to hear what rules basis you have to resolve that selection.

If you continue to not answer that, you're essentially admitting you're wrong. It's not an equally valid interpretation.

rigeld2 wrote:Again, you're ignoring the fact that you've also satisfied RoWi and SitW - and you have no basis for doing so.

You also are ignoring the fact that you're making an assumption that the default roll is 2d6. If a psyker in a future codex has to roll an extra die for psychic tests, does he get to ignore SitW and RoWa? Your ruling seems to be yes.

The default IS 2D6, check P.50 Psychic test, and Leadership test Page 8 It states Psychic Checks are normal LD tests. A normal LD test is taken on 2D6, thus it being the default.

rigeld2 wrote:You also still haven't addressed who wins in a RoWi, SitW, RoWa battle - if my Nids are fighting Eldar, and his psyker has RoWi but is also under SitW - which one takes effect? Or in Apocalypse if there's a RoWa and SitW covering the same unit - which one wins? Or if 2 Eldar are fighting - does RoWi beat RoWa or vice versa?

I do not know what RoWi does, so I can not address this.

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

You would roll an extra Die and discard the highest, as that does not break either RoWI or SitW.

They work just fine with each other.

All three abilities say to roll an extra dice. If I roll 3d6, according to you, I have met all the requirements to roll an extra dice. However, I have not met the requirements, I should be rolling between 3d6 and 5d6 (possibly 6d6 depending on what type of game is being played).

They each say to "Roll an extra die"

So if you Roll an extra die, you have fulfilled all rules that say to Roll an extra die.

A Psychic test is rolled on 2D6 (P.50 & P.8)

When rolling a Psychic test, if you roll 3d6 you are abiding by the "Roll an extra die" rule no matter how many times there are rules that say to "Roll an extra die" you ARE Roll an extra die on your Psychic check when you roll 3d6

This is because when you ask the question for each "Roll an extra die" rule you ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) then you move to the second instance of the rule , and ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) etc.

It is ambiguous and neither interpretation is incorrect.

DeathReaper wrote:They each say to "Roll an extra die"

So if you Roll an extra die, you have fulfilled all rules that say to Roll an extra die.

A Psychic test is rolled on 2D6 (P.50 & P.8)

When rolling a Psychic test, if you roll 3d6 you are abiding by the "Roll an extra die" rule no matter how many times there are rules that say to "Roll an extra die" you ARE Roll an extra die on your Psychic check when you roll 3d6

This is because when you ask the question for each "Roll an extra die" rule you ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) then you move to the second instance of the rule , and ask: Have you rolled an extra die? If the answer is yes (And it will be yes if you roll 3d6) etc.

It is ambiguous and neither interpretation is incorrect.

You only think it's ambiguous because you think it is. I don't see any ambiguity at all.

Check rule one - it says to roll an extra die. Add a d6 to the pool.
Check rule two - it says to roll an extra die. Add a d6 to the pool.

And if a psyker in a future codex adds an extra die when he takes psychic tests?

You're asserting that any psyker under all 3 effects becomes immune to RoWa and SitW.


edit: Roll to hit. I roll one die. Next weapon - I've already rolled to hit. That's satisfied. Next weapon...

rigeld2 wrote:You only think it's ambiguous because you think it is. I don't see any ambiguity at all.

Others see the ambiguity as well. So, even if you can not see the ambiguity, there must be some if people read it both ways.

The "ambiguity" there is also inherent everywhere else in the rules then.

Rolling to hit, Psychic powers, Leadership tests...

I don't understand why you're limiting that interpretation to just this ability.

rigeld2 wrote:The "ambiguity" there is also inherent everywhere else in the rules then.

Rolling to hit, Psychic powers, Leadership tests...

I don't understand why you're limiting that interpretation to just this ability.

Rolling to hit is not ambiguous.

"To determine if the firing models have hit their target, roll a D6 for each shot that is in range."

The wording of for each shot tells us to roll one D6 for each shot we have.

Wording that is absent from the RoW and SitW rules.

LD tests specifically tell you to roll 2D6 (BRB 8), I am not sure what you are referring to.

DeathReaper wrote:LD tests specifically tell you to roll 2D6 (BRB 8), I am not sure what you are referring to.

Pinning tests specifically. With your interpretation, I'd only roll for the first test, and automatically fail/pass any more.
That's not how the rules read, however.
Or multiple MSS on the same model - I've rolled and passed the first one. With your interpretation I don't need to roll any further.

I'm sure there's more examples.

Pinning says specifically that they may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn.

It explicitly says that you must take multiple pinning tests. (Something explicitly missing from RoW)

Not sure about MSS, I do not have the necron codex.

DeathReaper wrote:Pinning says specifically that they may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn.

Right, just like a psyker is called upon to add extra dice multiple times.

It explicitly says that you must take multiple pinning tests. (Something explicitly missing from RoW)

And all of those tests are satisfied by making the first one.

Why are you drawing line here? It seems arbitrary.

lets do maths

if I have 2 and am told to add 1 2 times what do I have?

You have 3 because, by adding 1 once, you've fulfilled the requirements of adding 1.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Pinning says specifically that they may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn.

Right, just like a psyker is called upon to add extra dice multiple times.

Page reference where it says specifically about the Psychic tests?

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It explicitly says that you must take multiple pinning tests. (Something explicitly missing from RoW)

And all of those tests are satisfied by making the first one.

Why are you drawing line here? It seems arbitrary.

care to explain how pinning is satisfied by the first test?

It says "As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn" (BRB P.31)

This is an explicit confirmation that you must take more than one pinning test.

Hukoseft wrote:yes the runes of warding say roll an extra dice....so having two of them would cause them to roll an extra dice for each one

if person one says "here is an apple" then gives you an apple you have one apple, if person 2 says "here is an apple" and gives you an apple, you now have 2 apples correct? how is this principle any different?

Actually, you can also say it like this:

If person A says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A" and person B says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A", you can either get 1 extra apple or 2 extra apples, depending on whether they meant the same "extra apple" or if hey meant 2 separate "extra apples".

DutchSage wrote:

Hukoseft wrote:yes the runes of warding say roll an extra dice....so having two of them would cause them to roll an extra dice for each one

if person one says "here is an apple" then gives you an apple you have one apple, if person 2 says "here is an apple" and gives you an apple, you now have 2 apples correct? how is this principle any different?

Actually, you can also say it like this:

If person A says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A" and person B says "you get an extra apple if you wash car A", you can either get 1 extra apple or 2 extra apples, depending on whether they meant the same "extra apple" or if hey meant 2 separate "extra apples".

well its 2 separate pieces of wargear, you are getting one extra apple from each person

@Happyjew I hope you were being sarcastic

this has become circular arguments because people don't listen to logic

Yes, I was joking hence the emoti-ork (orkicon?)

DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Pinning says specifically that they may be called upon to take multiple Pinning tests in a single turn.

Right, just like a psyker is called upon to add extra dice multiple times.

Page reference where it says specifically about the Psychic tests?

You mean about the extra dice? The RoWa page and rules have been posted multiple times in the thread.
Multiple wargear items require the extra die.
Multiple weapons cause a Pinning test.
Your assertion is that adding one extra die satisfies all of them.

rigeld2 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It explicitly says that you must take multiple pinning tests. (Something explicitly missing from RoW)

And all of those tests are satisfied by making the first one.

Why are you drawing line here? It seems arbitrary.

care to explain how pinning is satisfied by the first test?

It says "As long as the tests are passed, a unit may be called upon to take multiple pinning tests in a single turn" (BRB P.31)

This is an explicit confirmation that you must take more than one pinning test.

I am taking the extra pinning test - it's just that the first roll satisfies the requirement.

I'm using your interpretation (that doing X can satisfy the requirement to do X from a different source) to show that passing a Pinning test will allow you to pass all other Pinning tests that turn (not that you put a limit on it, but I'll give you that you're not trying to be THAT outlandish).

I'm sure there are other examples where this causes issues, but I don't have time to investigate much farther right now.

It does not say that more than one die can be added, Pinning says you can take multiple tests.

The first pinning test would satisfy the requirement, if it did not explicitly say that you must take multiple pinning tests.

DeathReaper wrote:It does not say that more than one die can be added, Pinning says you can take multiple tests.

The first pinning test would satisfy the requirement, if it did not explicitly say that you must take multiple pinning tests.

Do you have any rules basis to back up your "satisfies" position? Or are you falling back on the ethical position?

I don't see any way to read that as correct.

About the Pinning? You said that initially, I was going off of you.

DeathReaper wrote:About the Pinning? You said that initially, I was going off of you.

Nice turnaround.

No, I meant about the RoWa/RoWi/SitW stuff that you keep asserting is true, even if I don't understand it and I don't think it has any basis in rules.

I brought up Pinning because it seems similar enough to me that it feels like you're drawing an arbitrary line.

The pinning stuff is not the same, no adding going on there.

To fulfill the condition of "Roll an extra Die" you would roll an extra die.

If there are five rules that say "Roll an extra Die" then if you Roll an extra die, you have satisfied all five rules, since you are rolling an extra die.

But as I said before I can see how both interpretations are not incorrect.

The rules for Master Strategist do not mention stacking, and GW made an FAQ'd to allow them to stack. This is the same situation. It is an ambiguous rule and can be read two different ways.

If they were not meant to stack, why would GW change the wording from rule from "Roll 3d6" to "Roll an extra d6"?

BRB says that the model gets an "extra" +1 attack from having two single-handed weapons. Does this not stack with the extra attack from mandiblasters? (Two pieces of wargear giving the same benefit)

Edit: Mark of Nurgle and a Bike both add +1 toughness. Do they not stack?

DeathReaper wrote:The pinning stuff is not the same, no adding going on there.

To fulfill the condition of "Roll an extra Die" you would roll an extra die.

If there are five rules that say "Roll an extra Die" then if you Roll an extra die, you have satisfied all five rules, since you are rolling an extra die.

But as I said before I can see how both interpretations are not incorrect.

The rules for Master Strategist do not mention stacking, and GW made an FAQ'd to allow them to stack. This is the same situation. It is an ambiguous rule and can be read two different ways.

There's nothing strictly illogical about the idea that once you have reached the state of rolling an extra die you are fulfilling the requirement no matter how many times it is asked. To infer this however, would require more words than they put in the desription. It seems clear they intend to allow all these abilities to stack since there would be no other reason to change their wording from '3d6' to 'an extra die'.

You are arguing a logical view but it has no support in the wording of these abilities and is opposed by the obvious intent of the errata

culsandar wrote:BRB says that the model gets an "extra" +1 attack from having two single-handed weapons. Does this not stack with the extra attack from mandiblasters? (Two pieces of wargear giving the same benefit)

Edit: Mark of Nurgle and a Bike both add +1 toughness. Do they not stack?

Very well said! I was looking for other examples where things add something and everyone assumes they stack.

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

Some people seem to be getting blinded by the in game effect. If you just read the RAW, and lets say it was something minor, you would have no trouble understanding.

1 guy gives you an extra die. 2nd guy gives you an extra die. There is no ambiguity here. You get two extra dice.

The whole argument against seems to be based on "Woah that's powerful, are you sure?". Instead, lets apply the counter argument to wound allocation. You can spread out wounds within a unit of the same model type just by choosing 1 piece of different wargear on each? "Woah that's powerful, are you sure?"