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.

Disruptive song states that enemy psykers within 12" of a fiend of slanesh have a -1 penalty to their leadership. Does this stack if there are more than one fiend within 12"?



And also a clarification please. Fiends reduce init by 5. So if your init is 0 I am assuming you do not get to attack back against these things. Page 22 says the initiative steps are I10 through I1, and I could not find anything thats says a stat cannot be lowered to 0.

Page 2 brb says stats are from 10 to 0., so i see no reason it can't be lowered that far. The initiative steps for CC are from 10 down to 1. Since there is no basis for attacking at I 0, i would think the simply don't get to attack.

The RAW does seem to point that way, but because it's such an extremely powerful result, and because the rules for the Fiends don't explicitly state that the intent is for models to lose all their attacks, a lot of folks are doubtful about whether that's the intended effect.

Please be sure to email gamefaqs@gwplc.com about it; hopefully GW will confirm or clarify in the first FAQ for the book.

First question, they do not stack - see Shadow in the Warp, which has similar wording.

Second question, a of right now RAW Init drops to 0. However, I expect that to change.

 Happyjew wrote:
First question, they do not stack - see Shadow in the Warp, which has similar wording.

Second question, a of right now RAW Init drops to 0. However, I expect that to change.

Excuse me...what does Shadow in the Warp have to do with anything?

He's saying that Shadow (which per the errata adds an extra d6 to the psychic test) doesn't stack if there are multiple bugs with it in range, so neither should fiends' LD penalty.

And Hive Tyrant reserve bonuses do not stack, but Autarchs' do.

Autarchs' stacking is meaningless now, though.

It still works against the -1 Warlord Trait or Imperial Guard -1 modifier dude, though.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Autarchs' stacking is meaningless now, though.

My point was that FAQs are not always consistent across the board, so trying to apply a precedent from one FAQ to another codex can be tricky, if not completely invalid.

He's not applying a Shadows FAQ.

He's saying that the wording for Shadows is similar (almost exactly) what was put forth in the OP. Shadows has been discussed before and found to not stack.

rigeld2 wrote:He's not applying a Shadows FAQ.

He's saying that the wording for Shadows is similar (almost exactly)

puma713 wrote:
trying to apply a precedent from one FAQ to another codex can be tricky, if not completely invalid.

rigeld2 wrote:Shadows has been discussed before and found to not stack.

And there are instances across two different FAQs that point to similar wording having opposite rulings. So, you can't pick and choose which ones to use as precedent.

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's not applying a Shadows FAQ.

He's saying that the wording for Shadows is similar (almost exactly)

puma713 wrote:
trying to apply a precedent from one FAQ to another codex can be tricky, if not completely invalid.

rigeld2 wrote:Shadows has been discussed before and found to not stack.

And there are instances across two different FAQs that point to similar wording having opposite rulings. So, you can't pick and choose which ones to use as precedent.

Just because I'm away from books and stuff, can you give an example of two different FAQs dealing with similar wordings but different effects?

Furthermore, I wasn't talking about an FAQ (at least not the question part of it). I was talking about the wording in the codex itself (which was changed in 5th edition via errata) and was discussed at length on this forum on whether or not it stacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick search brings up:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/476457.page
and
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/492453.page

 Happyjew wrote:


Just because I'm away from books and stuff, can you give an example of two different FAQs dealing with similar wordings but different effects?

Hive Tyrant Hive Commander vs. Eldar Autarch.

Also, there was one for Canoptek Scarabs vs. Lash Whips, but I believe that one was corrected. Edit: It was, but because 6th changed the way it worked rather than the FAQ being corrected.

I think the difference is that (IIRC) Autarchs allow you to add +1, where as Hive Tyrants automatically add +1.

In all honesty though Autarchs are the exception to this rule - every other case of a specific model adding to reserve rolls (Lictors, Hive Tyrants, Astropaths, etc). were all ruled to not stack with itself.

 puma713 wrote:

Also, there was one for Canoptek Scarabs vs. Lash Whips, but I believe that one was corrected. Edit: It was, but because 6th changed the way it worked rather than the FAQ being corrected.

I think you're talking about Whip Coils vs. Lash Whips in 5th edition?

If so, yeah the wording for those two things is nearly identical and yet GW ruled one way for Whip Coils and another way for Lash Whips...although IIRC they did change one to match the other before 6th edition rolled around.

There was also Shadow in the Warp not affecting psykers in vehicles while other anti-psychic stuff was ruled the opposite (although again, they eventually changed it).

I'm sure there are still plenty in existence if you take the time to look through all the FAQs with a fine-tooth comb.

 puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's not applying a Shadows FAQ.

He's saying that the wording for Shadows is similar (almost exactly)

puma713 wrote:
trying to apply a precedent from one FAQ to another codex can be tricky, if not completely invalid.

My point was there is no Shadows FAQ.
right back atcha.

rigeld2 wrote:Shadows has been discussed before and found to not stack.

And there are instances across two different FAQs that point to similar wording having opposite rulings. So, you can't pick and choose which ones to use as precedent.

I'm not using any FAQs as precedent. I'm using the wording of the ability.

Actually rigeld, if you really want to get technical we are using the Tyranid FAQ, at least the Errata portion of it.

Still not an FAQ. Just the wording of the ability.

 yakface wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

Also, there was one for Canoptek Scarabs vs. Lash Whips, but I believe that one was corrected. Edit: It was, but because 6th changed the way it worked rather than the FAQ being corrected.

I think you're talking about Whip Coils vs. Lash Whips in 5th edition?

If so, yeah the wording for those two things is nearly identical and yet GW ruled one way for Whip Coils and another way for Lash Whips...although IIRC they did change one to match the other before 6th edition rolled around.

There was also Shadow in the Warp not affecting psykers in vehicles while other anti-psychic stuff was ruled the opposite (although again, they eventually changed it).

I'm sure there are still plenty in existence if you take the time to look through all the FAQs with a fine-tooth comb.

Yes, Whip Coils is what I meant. I just now realized that I wrote 'Canoptek Scarabs' and not 'Canoptek Wraiths' when I read your post.

There have been a few conflicting rulings between FAQs. OTOH there have also been quite a few important broadly-applicable FAQ rulings which happened to be made in the FAQ for a specific army, generally because that army was more popular or had the rule/interaction in question come up more often, which were important to other armies/units as well.

For example:

1. For multiple editions (3rd to 4th) a critical ruling about Skimmers being Glanced in close combat was found in the Eldar FAQ.
2. For most of 5th ed, the ruling on when you checked range to see if a model was in beneficial radius effect (critical for Sanguinary Priests and for Tervigons) was only found in the BA FAQ.
3. IIRC, the ruling (also in 5th) that Counter Attack and Furious Charge DID combine (and then a couple of weeks later, did NOT combine) was in the Space Wolf FAQ, when it was also massively important for Straken IG.

If a given codex-specific FAQ has a ruling which concerns a rule which also exists (or is very similar to one) in another codex, absent a conflicting ruling in the FAQ for that other codex, there is absolutely no good reason not to use the existing ruling as a precedent and to help one determine how the similar rule should work. In fact there's a very good reason TO do so, as it increases consistency across the game.

Regardless whether the wording is similar or not, they are 2 entirely different "abilities"

From a gameplay perspective I could see this one stacking, where as I could not see the additional D6's doing so.