Eldar Runes of Warding stack?

[lantzkev]

Well the rulebook FAQ states



That indicates to me that the default setting is "stack on."

exactly, specifically because they usually try and state when it does not.

Errata and FAQ change things, because it's a official interpretation, but it doesn't mean they are consistant (see different reserve boosters from different armies with essentially the same wording but some stack, some don't)

[Empirespy]

see different reserve boosters from different armies with essentially the same wording but some stack, some don't

If you're referring to the astropaths and autarchs, they have different wording different effects and the FAQ for the astropath actually had a fluff reason why it could not. This shows that it's not them just being inconsistent, but that it is in fact for a reason. Since by RAW we have an answer, and just speculation about precedents set for allowing stacking, which I would like to point out it can be very different on what is stacking and whether it should be allowed to stack, that this conversation is going nowhere, and we should wait until an FAQ is released, until then discuss it before the game, and play it by ear.
-Empirespy

[lantzkev]

exactly the fluff reasons drove it rather than a consistant ruling approach, they should just errata things to say +1 bonus, this bonus does not stack with bonuses from other of X unit. Rather than just saying in a FAQ it does stack, that way there is a consistency.

[thanoson]

So Lanzkev, it is your assertion that if I had four units with SitW around a psyker, they would have to make thier test on 6D6? Is that really what you think?

[DoctorTom]

If you're referring to the astropaths and autarchs, they have different wording different effects

Autarch: "While the Autarch is alive, you may choose to add 1 to your rolls for Reserves"

Astropath "Whilst the Astropath is alive, you ad 1 to any of your reserve rolls."

So, how exactly does making something mandatory vs giving the option, and using "whilst" instead of "while" make the effect different enough to state that one would stack while the other wouldn't? It does show that they're being inconsistent between codexes.

[TheGreatDalmuti]

You forgot the "any" part

[lantzkev]

So Lanzkev, it is your assertion that if I had four units with SitW around a psyker, they would have to make thier test on 6D6? Is that really what you think?

Nope, that's their contention the point is that if it says you roll on xd6 rather than +xd6, it doesn't matter how many you have with that rule it's always xd6. +xd6 is additive normally unless otherwise stated. But again in the example of the astropaths and autarchs, they both have nearly identical wording and effects and yet one stacks and one doesn't....

In your example it says they roll on 3d6, so no... and for reference you're not following the conversation if you thought I was.

in your example thanoson you failed because it says the test is taken on 3d6, rather than +1d6 etc.

Each example of the rule would "stack" but the effect would be identical since each stack is recursive and says test on 3d6...

Unless it's been in a errata, hive tyrants would let you stack the rolls since they provide +1 to the rolls.

I clearly say no, you only test on 3d6, I also state the reserve bonus should stack.

However thought, as the errata has changed it to "extra die" they will technically stack, despite the wording of the codex, the wording has since been changed.

[Empirespy]

Autarch: "While the Autarch is alive, you may choose to add 1 to your rolls for Reserves"

Astropath "Whilst the Astropath is alive, you ad 1 to any of your reserve rolls."

So, how exactly does making something mandatory vs giving the option, and using "whilst" instead of "while" make the effect different enough to state that one would stack while the other wouldn't? It does show that they're being inconsistent between codexes.

Firstly, look at the fact that they have different effects, you may choose to add, or not to add, whereas the other always adds, whether you want it to or not. They are similar rules, but not the same. They are different enough in the fact that 1 is fixed and 1 is variable, and because of this, when they are stacked, they widen the difference between them, as the Astropaths would always give +2 to reserve rolls, but the Autarchs give no bonus, a +1 bonus and a +2 bonus. These are very different, and I can't see how you are going to disagree with that. As for why one is allowed to stack and not the other read the Astropath FAQ entry, it's a nice fluffy reason. So many people complain at the lack of realism in 40k, and how things don't fit the fluff, and yet when GW do make rulings in accordance with fluff, people complain that it's not constitent enough ...

[lantzkev]

empire the reasons you give don't actually amount to a real reason. Those are differences that are speculation, in the issue of stacking or not, there's just no reason why one stacks and the other doesn't rule wise.

Having more astropaths around should actually make it easier to get reinforcments there because fluff wise the more psykers you have the clearer the signals you get out are...

[Empirespy]

That is just speculation, the cannon fluff is that the confusion created by having so many advisors simultaneously vying for a Commander’s attention negates any potential benefit.

[lantzkev]

That is just speculation, the cannon fluff is that the confusion created by having so many advisors simultaneously vying for a Commander’s attention negates any potential benefit.

It's speculation that more psykers = better signals? you sir need to read more fluff, it's cannon to the extreme that more psykers = stronger and better signals. Now masters of the fleet etc, you're right on about that.

[Empirespy]

What does having a better signal have to do with anything? Astropaths receive communications from high levels, and use divinatory powers to help advise the field commanders of how to redeploy their forces. If there are two Astropaths, then they get the same information twice, or they both get different information, but have to get the attention of the field commander, who's only going to be listening to one of them at a time.

[lantzkev]

They recieve that signal through the warp, and the more that are there the better that signal gets, there are numerous examples in stories and fluff of astropaths working together to get the better signal. You can argue this thing either way and be right either way. Citing them as your example is just poor for rules arguments

[CaptainGallas]

The more Astropaths, the better signal. I get that. But as Empirespy said, does 10 Astropaths with a super crisp and clear signal get any other information than:
"Send in the reserves! We have a signal from the Astropaths, a super clear signal I might ad!" ?

Fluff-wise, the Autharchs, with their supreme tactical skills, can choose when they want their reserves to arrive. With more Autarchs working together, they can make a masterplan for the perfect time of arrival of the reserves.

That has nothing to do with RAW, but it's fun to analyze the fluff.

[lantzkev]

You realise astropaths also act as homing beacons?

[DoctorTom]

Firstly, look at the fact that they have different effects, you may choose to add, or not to add, whereas the other always adds, whether you want it to or not. They are similar rules, but not the same. They are different enough in the fact that 1 is fixed and 1 is variable, and because of this, when they are stacked, they widen the difference between them, as the Astropaths would always give +2 to reserve rolls, but the Autarchs give no bonus, a +1 bonus and a +2 bonus. These are very different, and I can't see how you are going to disagree with that.

Yes, I actually am, since it's not "very" different. The wording is almost identical except for one must add the bonus and one may add the bonus. Your argument about widening the difference is flummery you've come up with to try a justification after the fact. Reading the rules, there's no indication at all that one would be able to stack and the other would not be able to stack.

As for why one is allowed to stack and not the other read the Astropath FAQ entry, it's a nice fluffy reason. So many people complain at the lack of realism in 40k, and how things don't fit the fluff, and yet when GW do make rulings in accordance with fluff, people complain that it's not constitent enough ...

The problem with it being a nice fluffy reason is that when you're actually writing the rules, consistent rules should have consistent effects and consistent interactions. If it's going to work differently, it should be stated in the rules to start. If we are to just play by the fluff, then there's no need to play because the Space Marines win every time. You act like there's something actually bad with wanting a company to be inconsistent. right back at you.

[Empirespy]

This is the third time I've tried to post this, So this is the shortest one;

Point 1;
Inconsistency leads to diversity, and that's how I feel the game should be diverse, not modular, as it would be if everything with similar rules had the same interactions and effects, but each to there own, you may like it that way.

Point 2;
If you have a rule where the difference is between may and must, then it is a different rule. They do different things, if they were the same, then rage and other such rules wouldn't work. You say you can't find anything which says that they should interact differently, that's because there isn't anything, that's why there is a disagreement, and why they have an FAQ detailing what happens, with a reason why they did it. You don't like it that way, don't play it that way.

Point 3;
Look up the marines errant, or the Crimson fists, or those chapters that where eaten by tyranids, they didn't win.

Sorry if this comes out a bit blunt, but I wrote out a massive post which got eaten, then another slightly shorter one and my PC died, and now I'm annoyed, and want to get my point across.
-Empirespy

[lantzkev]

Inconsistency leads to diversity, and that's how I feel the game should be diverse, not modular, as it would be if everything with similar rules had the same interactions and effects, but each to there own, you may like it that way.

There's a difference between diversity and "we'll phrase things that mean the exact same thing, but we'll errata them to have different meanings" If you're advocating for this kind of lunacy have at it, but that's not a rule set, it's a schizophrenic set of rules without any consistency.

[DoctorTom]

This is the third time I've tried to post this, So this is the shortest one;

Point 1;
Inconsistency leads to diversity, and that's how I feel the game should be diverse, not modular, as it would be if everything with similar rules had the same interactions and effects, but each to there own, you may like it that way.

No, inconsistency does not lead to diversity. Inconsistency leads to chaos in rules. Making the wording of the rules clearly different and specifying the differences you want in the rules leads to diversity. If you use wording that means the same thing, then there is the expectation that the rules should work the same way.

Point 2;
If you have a rule where the difference is between may and must, then it is a different rule. They do different things, if they were the same, then rage and other such rules wouldn't work. You say you can't find anything which says that they should interact differently, that's because there isn't anything, that's why there is a disagreement, and why they have an FAQ detailing what happens, with a reason why they did it. You don't like it that way, don't play it that way.

It is not a completely different rule. They do the same thing, but one does it all of the time while the other has the option of doing it all of the time or not. In this case the "add 1 to reserves roll" part of the statements are the same, so should behave the same for stacking given the only difference is one may and the other must do it. The FAQ changed the rules for Astopaths, and is inconsistent with what went before. And, thank you for admitting there isn't anything in the rules that says they should work differently between the two and it was the FAQs that changed things. The point here is that you should be able to predict how the Runes of Warding stack based upon previous rulings of how things with similar wordings stack, and that GW has shown with the differences between Astropaths and Autarchs that you can't necessarily base the answer here on FAQ answers for other questions, despite the fact that you should be able to. It's not too much to ask for logic and consistency between rulings (apparently unless you're talking about GW ),

Point 3;
Look up the marines errant, or the Crimson fists, or those chapters that where eaten by tyranids, they didn't win.

Harp on a detail, miss the point entirely. The point is you don't base your rules decisions on the fluff.

Sorry if this comes out a bit blunt, but I wrote out a massive post which got eaten, then another slightly shorter one and my PC died, and now I'm annoyed, and want to get my point across.
-Empirespy[/QUOTE]

There's a difference between diversity and "we'll phrase things that mean the exact same thing, but we'll errata them to have different meanings" If you're advocating for this kind of lunacy have at it, but that's not a rule set, it's a schizophrenic set of rules without any consistency.

I fully agree with you. We aren't playing fizzbin, where one person gets to make up all the rules as he goes along. And to take it further, if it's going to be a schizophrenic set of rules without any consistency, then the game is going to boil down to rolling a d6 for every rule in there because you can't be sure exactly what they meant by the rule. If, indeed, you can trust their rule for rolling a d6 to solve things in that case, since you can't even trust that rule any more as meaning what it says.

[Dervos]

There's an errata on the Runes of Warding.

"Page 26 - Runes of Warding"
Change the last sentence to "All enemy Psykers must roll an extra dice when taking Psychic tests, suffering Perils of the Warp on any roll of 12 or above."

I had no previous knowledge of this errata and just looked it up after happening to come across this topic.

Without this errata I would have assumed it would just be a 3D6 roll even with taking two runes of warding, the second one acting as a back up in case you lose one of your farseers.

But with this errata it says enemy psykers have to roll an extra dice, and if your taking two of them I assume you'd have to roll 2 extra dice to represent both of the Runes of Warding according to the errata, or at least that's how I think it means.

Then again it doesn't explicitly explain what happens if you take two.