PDA

View Full Version : Dwarfs - Things You Had to Read Twice



Lord Dan
21-02-2014, 16:56
Thread title: Things You Had to Read Twice

For instance, I just noticed that the Rune of Forging doesn't specify that it cannot be used on a cannonball bounce, but rather just says: "...can re-roll the artillery die whenever a misfire is rolled;" This also means that one could re-roll a misfire for the initial shot, and then re-roll a misfire for the bounce in a single shot.

What else have you guys found?

InstantKarma
21-02-2014, 17:34
As usual a lot of awkwardly worded sentences and funny grammar, but that is to be expected from GW these days.

As far as rules, I know Shieldwall for Hammerers just seems bizarre at this time.

Alltaken
21-02-2014, 18:16
Dispell rune (turns into spell eater) doesnt clarify that 3 runes cant be taken, and that the third rune doesnt grant a dispell effect

From my servoskull

SteveW
21-02-2014, 18:17
Just read it and use it like the very plainly written rule says?

InstantKarma
21-02-2014, 19:49
Dispell rune (turns into spell eater) doesnt clarify that 3 runes cant be taken, and that the third rune doesnt grant a dispell effect

From my servoskull

Just read it, not sure where this ambiguity is coming from. The description states that 2 Spellbreaking runes gives a certain effect in addition to the previous effect with only 1 rune, and that a 3rd rune will have no further effect. Sure there is nothing to prohibit you taking a 3rd, except that there is no 3rd level pts cost or effect which would suggest there is nothing there which would allow you to make use of a 3rd rune. Not sure where this 'Spelleater' rune is coming from, as it isn't mentioned in the armybook.

Are you suggesting that with 3 Runes of Spellbreaking that you would get the effect of the first two, and that by taking a third you start all over, so you effective have RoSB (2x) and RoSB(1x) with one giving the level 2 effects and the other giving the level 1 effects?

Alltaken
21-02-2014, 19:56
The rule states "no aditional effects" it could be understood that way, 3 dispell - 1 eats spells. However point costs dont state 3 dispells

From my servoskull

morganleah
21-02-2014, 20:11
with the book in front of me it says it has "no further effect" this is entirely different from no additional effect

Veshnakar
21-02-2014, 20:20
I was considering a runesmith/lord with the fire breath ring or two runes of fire. Am I correct in thinking that because of the armor piercing rule that runesmiths have inherently, does this mean that if you use the breath weapon in combat it would be armor piercing?

Lord Dan
21-02-2014, 20:21
I think some people may be looking at this rune incorrectly, presumably mixing it up with the way the rune worked previously. For instance:

Old Book
1 rune = 1 auto dispel
2 runes = 2 auto dispels

That's not what it does anymore:

New Book
1 rune = 1 auto dispel
2 runes = 1 auto dispel, 4+ that spell is forgotten

Therefore, a third rune does literally nothing.

Lord Dan
21-02-2014, 20:22
I was considering a runesmith/lord with the fire breath ring or two runes of fire. Am I correct in thinking that because of the armor piercing rule that runesmiths have inherently, does this mean that if you use the breath weapon in combat it would be armor piercing?

The Armor Piercing special rule specifically only applies to close combat attacks. I don't have the BRB in front of me, however I'm almost positive that using a breath weapon in combat does not mean that those attacks count as "close combat attacks". Can anyone verify this?

ColWayne
21-02-2014, 20:27
I think some people may be looking at this rune incorrectly, presumably mixing it up with the way the rune worked previously. For instance:

Old Book
1 rune = 1 auto dispel
2 runes = 2 auto dispels

That's not what it does anymore:

New Book
1 rune = 1 auto dispel
2 runes = 1 auto dispel, 4+ that spell is forgotten

Therefore, a third rune does literally nothing.

Does it mean though you could take 3 runesmiths and get around the rule of pride

1 - with x1 spell breaker
2 - with x2 spell breaker
3 - with x3 spell breaker?

Getting you 3 dispel scrolls?

InstantKarma
21-02-2014, 20:29
No further effect would indicate that it gives no further benefit other than the two listed. Whether it says 'additional' isn't relevant.

Under 'Rules of Runes' on pg 59 in the 5th paragraph it talks about taking multiples of a rune and makes a note that whether these effects simply 'stack' or combine to create additional benefits are listed under the rune itself. It also notes that when taking multiples you go by the cost relative to the number of runes you wish to stack/combine of the same rune, and then gives the Rune of Cleaving as an example (which does have effects up to 3 runes). Also given the Rule of Form which states you have to stick runes on their respective item and not somewhere else (eg, no Armor runes on Weapons) this means you can't take this 3rd Spellbreaker rune and stick it on another item in order to gain the benefits of having 1 Talisman with 2x RoSB and then in another place have 1x RoSB. Given that the RoSB has no points cost for taking a 3rd RoSB and because it states 'no further effects' as well as not having anything allowing for 'stacking' I cannot see how this is unclear. Taking a 3rd rune doesn't make sense because the rules will not let you.

You also misunderstand the wording. Having 2 RoSB does not give you 2 dispels with 1 +4 chance to delete the spell from the Wizard. You have a single dispel with the additional effect of a +4 chance to delete the spell.

"A second Rune of Spellbreaking maintians the previous effect [singular, not plural, so no multiple dispel from taking 2 runes let alone 3] and, after the spell is dispelled, roll a D6;"

We can stop right there.

Now what you could do if you took say 1 Runelord and 2 runesmiths is give each one a different talismantic rune combo that had either 1 or 2 RoSB to get the multiple dispels you're looking for:

1) Runelord with MRoB, RoSB (2x)
2) Runesmith with RoSB
3) Runesmith with RoSB (2x)

That would be legit and let you not only get 3 dispels, but also 2 +4 spell deletes.

Edit: Lord Dan > at summarizing than I am.

Lord Dan
21-02-2014, 20:29
Does it mean though you could take 3 runesmiths and get around the rule of pride

1 - with x1 spell breaker
2 - with x2 spell breaker
3 - with x3 spell breaker?

Getting you 3 dispel scrolls?

No, because there isn't any point cost listed for a 3rd rune (it doesn't simply duplicate, as before). You could do what you've suggested to get two dispel scrolls, though personally that's more than I'd want to spend on either Runesmiths or dispel scrolls.

Bergen Beerbelly
21-02-2014, 21:10
Ok, here is an interesting one. The rune of Slowness does not follow the wording of every other banner rune in the book. In every other Banner Rune it says things to the effect of :

1st rune: A standard bearing a Rune of _ confers...
2nd rune: A standard bearing two Runes of_ confers...

But the Rune of Slowness says:

1st rune: Any foe charging a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness...
2nd rune: A Second rune of slowness means...
3rd rune A Third rune of slowness maintains...

Notice the difference in wording? This wording may mean you can have multiple Banners in a unit with Runes of Slowness and they could combine to create the total effect of the runes!

So you may be able to have a Battle Standard with a Rune of Slowness on it and then a regular standard with another two runes of slowness on them and they may all combine together to get the effect of 3 runes of slowness simply by virtue of being in the same unit.

Veshnakar
21-02-2014, 21:30
The Armor Piercing special rule specifically only applies to close combat attacks. I don't have the BRB in front of me, however I'm almost positive that using a breath weapon in combat does not mean that those attacks count as "close combat attacks". Can anyone verify this?

Just got my book in front of me... it states the following regarding the breath weapon in combat..

"If the model with this special rule is in close combat it can use the breath weapon to make an additional close combat attack at it's own Initiative."

And armor piercing


"Wounds caused in close combat by a model with this special rule inflict a further -1 armor save modifier."

So armor piercing yes? Since the runesmith has the rule, and not his weapon?

maze ironheart
21-02-2014, 21:35
yeah you'd think GW would I don't know make sure a product the charge alot for would not have these mistakes in them but really do GW care they got the money so as long as they have that they could not give a monkeys ass about it.

Lord Dan
21-02-2014, 21:41
Just got my book in front of me... it states the following regarding the breath weapon in combat..


And armor piercing



So armor piercing yes? Since the runesmith has the rule, and not his weapon?

Nice catch. Sounds legit to me.

Ludaman
21-02-2014, 21:45
Seconded, legit

The bearded one
21-02-2014, 22:14
Legit enough for me.

* spams breathweapons *

Leogun_91
22-02-2014, 00:24
Ok, here is an interesting one. The rune of Slowness does not follow the wording of every other banner rune in the book. In every other Banner Rune it says things to the effect of :

1st rune: A standard bearing a Rune of _ confers...
2nd rune: A standard bearing two Runes of_ confers...

But the Rune of Slowness says:

1st rune: Any foe charging a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness...
2nd rune: A Second rune of slowness means...
3rd rune A Third rune of slowness maintains...

Notice the difference in wording? This wording may mean you can have multiple Banners in a unit with Runes of Slowness and they could combine to create the total effect of the runes!

So you may be able to have a Battle Standard with a Rune of Slowness on it and then a regular standard with another two runes of slowness on them and they may all combine together to get the effect of 3 runes of slowness simply by virtue of being in the same unit.Other way around, a unit including a rune of slowness means that it won't combine as you would still be charging a unit with a rune of slowness if said unit had two or three of the runes. Other standards does not have the restriction of the rune of slowness and can be combined, so a hammerer unit with 2 runes of battle joined by a BSB carrying two more runes of battle would get a total of +4 Combat Resolution from those runes.
Rune of Slowness is the exception to the rule that such effects can stack.

Treadhead_1st
22-02-2014, 19:40
So armor piercing yes? Since the runesmith has the rule, and not his weapon?


Nice catch. Sounds legit to me.


Legit enough for me.

I'm afraid not, folks - some entries from the FAQ, page 7:

Q: Do special rules that can inflict hits in close combat, such as
Stomp and Breath Weapons, count as close combat attacks? (p42)
A: No they count as an unusual attack and will be distributed
as a shooting attack.

Q: Do Breath Weapon hits benefit from any other special rules,
equipment or magic items of the model that inflicts the hits? (p67)
A: No.

Lord Dan
22-02-2014, 19:46
Wow, they FAQ'd something with no rules discrepancy and changed it to RaI, but couldn't bring themselves to change the ruling on Slaughtermasters wearing armor? Is any of this real?

GrandmasterWang
23-02-2014, 05:22
Shield wall on Hammerers makes perfect sense and is actually a case of GW thinking things through and getting it right!

They have the rule because they can take shields and Champion can take a magic weapon giving him a parry save instead of his great weapon.

This is good for me as I glued shields on my old hammerer metals. Potential fire rune on champ to strip regen with 3 attacks before the hammerers proper get stuck in with their great weapons.

Re: Reading things twice I read through the updated high king Thorgrim Grudge bearers Armor of Skaldour rules multiple times. It says as part of the rules for it "against attacks with the Killing Blow, Heroic Killing Blow or Multiple Wounds special rules, Thorgrim has a 2+ ward save"

I have taken this to mean that he gets this 2+ against all the attacks from executioners for example amd not just the hits that actually roll the killing blow.

I like that the Dwarf King of Kings having no look out sir on his fatty throne can laugh at cannon balls/rock lobbers etc. As it should be

Lord Dan
23-02-2014, 07:12
They have the rule because they can take shields and Champion can take a magic weapon giving him a parry save instead of his great weapon.

I get the general impression that they don't think about rules that much.

The bearded one
23-02-2014, 09:47
Shield wall on Hammerers makes perfect sense and is actually a case of GW thinking things through and getting it right!

They have the rule because they can take shields and Champion can take a magic weapon giving him a parry save instead of his great weapon.

Aren't magic weapons not allowed to parry?

I'm sure the rule is just on them for the sake of completeness, and in case they change it in 9th edition to allow you to swap between weapons, the rule will be there.

Ossirian
23-02-2014, 10:00
Just got my book in front of me... it states the following regarding the breath weapon in combat..


And armor piercing



So armor piercing yes? Since the runesmith has the rule, and not his weapon?

FAQ States special ruleson the model do not get transferred to breath weapons as they are unusual attacks. End of discussion re breath weapons.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ossirian
23-02-2014, 10:03
Aren't magic weapons not allowed to parry?

I'm sure the rule is just on them for the sake of completeness, and in case they change it in 9th edition to allow you to swap between weapons, the rule will be there.

True. As far as I remember all dwarfs have that rule. Great weapon=no shields on combat. Magic weapon>great weapon but magic weapon+shield=no parry allowed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ossirian
23-02-2014, 10:08
I think if the majority of players spent as long reading the actual rules as they do looking for loopholes or overpowered mistakes then forums like this wouldn't exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ludaman
23-02-2014, 10:31
I think if the majority of players spent as long reading the actual rules as they do looking for loopholes or overpowered mistakes then forums like this wouldn't exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aww c'mon now, there are the book rules, the army book rules, the FAQs they have been known to backtrack on, and as lord dan pointed out, their nearly villainous ability to switch between FAQing in favor RAW or RAI... So don't go sassing us about not reading "the rules" well enough ;)

Ossirian
23-02-2014, 10:42
Aww c'mon now, there are the book rules, the army book rules, the FAQs they have been known to backtrack on, and as lord dan pointed out, their nearly villainous ability to switch between FAQing in favor RAW or RAI... So don't go sassing us about not reading "the rules" well enough ;)

Parry with magic weapon. "Does this mean I can have 3 dispel scrolls?" Every other army can have one. Just all screams of trying to beat the rules and simply not knowing the game.
Personally I want my chaos marauders to be t4 ld9 with heavy armor for 2pts more but that's not what my book says.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ludaman
23-02-2014, 10:43
Yeah yeah, some of it's nonsense, but then again, GW let the cauldron of blood wound re-rolls work on shooting weapons... Whoops

Zinch
23-02-2014, 21:15
yeah you'd think GW would I don't know make sure a product the charge alot for would not have these mistakes in them but really do GW care they got the money so as long as they have that they could not give a monkeys ass about it.

This is one of the GW books with less posible discrepancies, so this is out of place, IMO...

In fact, I only see 2 rules FAQs:

- Thorgrim having 2++ against all attacks with Killing Blow or only against attacks that scored a killing blow.

- MRoSnorri vs Mark of Nurgle

The bearded one
23-02-2014, 22:44
This is one of the GW books with less posible discrepancies, so this is out of place, IMO...

In fact, I only see 2 rules FAQs:

- Thorgrim having 2++ against all attacks with Killing Blow or only against attacks that scored a killing blow.

That one seems pretty clear to me. An attack has the killing blow special rule, even if it doesn't roll that 6 to wound to cause instant death.

The one that stumps me more is the rune of preservation, which "grants a 2+ wards save against the effects of the killing blow and heroic killing blow special rules". Does it grant a 2+ wardsave against the entire wound of the attacks that rolled a 6 to wound, or purely against the killing blow effect (but not stopping the single wound)?

some_scrub
24-02-2014, 03:45
Parry with magic weapon. "Does this mean I can have 3 dispel scrolls?" Every other army can have one. Just all screams of trying to beat the rules and simply not knowing the game.
Personally I want my chaos marauders to be t4 ld9 with heavy armor for 2pts more but that's not what my book says.


I think it's pretty funny that you're criticizing other people for not knowing the game when you seem to have no idea what's at issue here. Either way this particular rules dispute goes, dwarfs can have multiple dispel scrolls. That's not in question.

That said, I think the Rune of Spellbreaking works is laid out quite clearly in the book: A runic talisman can have one or two of them. You can't have 3 though, even if you were willing to pay some number of extra points to skirt the Rule of Pride. How would you know how many points to pay for this combination of 3 Runes of Spellbreaking?

TBO the question you raised is one that had been bothering me too. This is a case where either the rule isn't worded in the most obvious way or doesn't do the most obvious thing. If you really only get the save against the "effects" of the killing blow special rule, that's pretty strange. Is there anything else in the game that gets a Ward Save against the "effects" of a special rule? How does that even work if you have a normal ward save on top of this KB ward save? On the other hand, if it just does the obvious thing and gives you a Ward Save against attacks / wounds with the Killing Blow / HKB special rules, why doesn't the rule just say that? Ugh.

Also it's worth pointing out that the main reason the Hammerers having Shieldwall is frustrating (even if they can't use it) is that Rangers don't get the rule (even though they're in exactly the same situation). Why not? Maybe it's a fluff thing. After all , the rangers spend a lot of time in the wild and probably smell a bit funky. Maybe they're just reluctant to get too close to one another, even with the enemy bearing down on them.

Lord Dan
24-02-2014, 04:45
I think it's pretty funny that you're criticizing other people for not knowing the game when you seem to have no idea what's at issue here. Either way this particular rules dispute goes, dwarfs can have multiple dispel scrolls. That's not in question.

That said, I think the Rune of Spellbreaking works is laid out quite clearly in the book: A runic talisman can have one or two of them. You can't have 3 though, even if you were willing to pay some number of extra points to skirt the Rule of Pride. How would you know how many points to pay for this combination of 3 Runes of Spellbreaking?

TBO the question you raised is one that had been bothering me too. This is a case where either the rule isn't worded in the most obvious way or doesn't do the most obvious thing. If you really only get the save against the "effects" of the killing blow special rule, that's pretty strange. Is there anything else in the game that gets a Ward Save against the "effects" of a special rule? How does that even work if you have a normal ward save on top of this KB ward save? On the other hand, if it just does the obvious thing and gives you a Ward Save against attacks / wounds with the Killing Blow / HKB special rules, why doesn't the rule just say that? Ugh.

Also it's worth pointing out that the main reason the Hammerers having Shieldwall is frustrating (even if they can't use it) is that Rangers don't get the rule (even though they're in exactly the same situation). Why not? Maybe it's a fluff thing. After all , the rangers spend a lot of time in the wild and probably smell a bit funky. Maybe they're just reluctant to get too close to one another, even with the enemy bearing down on them.

You should re-read the rune. A second rune doesn't give you a second auto-dispel anymore, it just gives that first auto-dispel a chance at removing the spell:

"A second Rune of Spellbreaking maintains the previous effect and, after the spell is dispelled, roll a D6; on a 4+, the enemy spell is lost to the Wizard..."

This is why the second rune is cheaper than the first.

The bearded one
24-02-2014, 06:17
I think he meant you can have 2 runes of spellbreaking on an item, it's just not 2 auto-dispells. And you can have multiple by using multiple runesmiths.

Lord Dan
24-02-2014, 06:26
I think he meant you can have 2 runes of spellbreaking on an item, it's just not 2 auto-dispells. And you can have multiple by using multiple runesmiths.

That's fair, re-reading his post now I see I rushed to judge on that one.

Ossirian
24-02-2014, 07:06
I think it's pretty funny that you're criticizing other people for not knowing the game when you seem to have no idea what's at issue here. Either way this particular rules dispute goes, dwarfs can have multiple dispel scrolls. That's not in question.

That said, I think the Rune of Spellbreaking works is laid out quite clearly in the book: A runic talisman can have one or two of them. You can't have 3 though, even if you were willing to pay some number of extra points to skirt the Rule of Pride. How would you know how many points to pay for this combination of 3 Runes of Spellbreaking?

TBO the question you raised is one that had been bothering me too. This is a case where either the rule isn't worded in the most obvious way or doesn't do the most obvious thing. If you really only get the save against the "effects" of the killing blow special rule, that's pretty strange. Is there anything else in the game that gets a Ward Save against the "effects" of a special rule? How does that even work if you have a normal ward save on top of this KB ward save? On the other hand, if it just does the obvious thing and gives you a Ward Save against attacks / wounds with the Killing Blow / HKB special rules, why doesn't the rule just say that? Ugh.

Also it's worth pointing out that the main reason the Hammerers having Shieldwall is frustrating (even if they can't use it) is that Rangers don't get the rule (even though they're in exactly the same situation). Why not? Maybe it's a fluff thing. After all , the rangers spend a lot of time in the wild and probably smell a bit funky. Maybe they're just reluctant to get too close to one another, even with the enemy bearing down on them.

I think its funny you cannot spell criticising. But in broad strokes you agree with me, my bugbear is the search for the what if when the rules are clear. Which I believe if you read the entire post seems to be the topic.

Ward save vs killing blow or multiply wounds works like a dragon bane gem does I imagine, again seems quite simple to me. When the rule comes into play you 2++ to negate the rule.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ossirian
24-02-2014, 07:09
Just read it and use it like the very plainly written rule says?

Hero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dwarfhold13
24-02-2014, 07:13
Wow, they FAQ'd something with no rules discrepancy and changed it to RaI, but couldn't bring themselves to change the ruling on Slaughtermasters wearing armor? Is any of this real?

Nope, it's just fantasy!

Lord Dan
24-02-2014, 08:59
I think its funny you cannot spell criticising.

It may be different where you're from, but in the states it actually is "criticizing":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/criticizing

Fear Ghoul
24-02-2014, 10:56
I think its funny you cannot spell criticising.

Actually he did spell it correctly. It is a common misconception especially in Britain that such words should end in -ise rather than -ize, and it is only in the last two decades that Britain has seen a substantial to the former from the latter.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/44601?redirectedFrom=criticise&

T10
24-02-2014, 11:07
The Armor Piercing special rule specifically only applies to close combat attacks. I don't have the BRB in front of me, however I'm almost positive that using a breath weapon in combat does not mean that those attacks count as "close combat attacks". Can anyone verify this?

My memory fails me, but isn't breath weapons a bit like Stomp attacks: Only the special rules of the breath weapon apply and not any other special rules of the model?

-T10

Kalandros
24-02-2014, 11:10
My memory fails me, but isn't breath weapons a bit like Stomp attacks: Only the special rules of the breath weapon apply and not any other special rules of the model?

-T10

Yep, no special rules may affect the breath weapons (and stomps) unless specified otherwise (Magical stomps for Daemons).