Jump to content


Photo

Multiple Of The Same Rune

rules question runes rune multiple runes

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Gimble Beren

Gimble Beren

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 04:19 AM

I am going to sound like a rules lawyer, but I have looked everywhere and can't find any ruling to what I am looking for.  (As a side note the Dwarf Errata is still up on the GW website but we have a new book.  Is GW that slow to change their website?)

 

I am looking at taking the same rune twice on a single item.  i.e.  Two Rune of Iron on armor.  Instead of stacking, I want to spend 20 points twice for +2 wounds.

 

Now the rulings on how this might come down:

 

  There isn't a rule saying you can, so you can't do that.

      (counter argument:  Runes that cant be taken more than once say 'multiples of this rune have no further effect')

 

Mainly I am looking for a source of this ruling, just give me a page number and I will be happy.  (yes I'm assuming we can't at this point)

 

I have looked through the AB, the Warhammer Rulebook, and the Errata.

 

My thoughts: (kept seperate because I don't want to jumble up my core question above).  Magic Items can only be taken once, so being able to create custom magic items the way dwarfs do is powerful.  And of course I am looking at taking two seperate spellbreaker runes on the runesmith, because I don't see anywhere that two runes can not be inscribed on a single talisman and I don't see anywhere where stacking is required to put a 'second' rune on an item. This would be extremely powerful and our magic won't have been nerfed as hard as some people feel. (So I won't feel bad if we can't do this)  I assume there will be an errata soon to come because the Rules of Runes on page 59 especially part 5 appears weakly written.

 

Thank you for your time and patience with a stubborn beardling.

 

Gimble

 

P.S.  edit for grammar and clarification.

 

P.P.S I have read a lot of threads, please don't just post an opinion, please give rules quotes and reasoning behind the decisions on this ruling.  Thanks again for your time.


Edited by Gimble Beren, 26 February 2014 - 04:22 AM.


#2 The Bearded Baron

The Bearded Baron

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:03 AM

What's a forum for if not to discuss! I've never understood how people can get frustrated by anybody asking a question.

 

As far as I see it, 'stacking' is synonymous with having multiple runes. I think perhaps the terminology 'stacking' can mislead you into believing it is a separate process. In other words, if you put a stackable Rune on an item it will have it's basic effect. Then, as is written in the description of the Rune, a second Rune will have a different effect. It isn't the case that we are putting one Rune of Fire ontop of another one, for example. Stacking, in our new book, simply means that having multiple runes of the same type will no longer have the same, cumulative, effects, but instead an altered effect.

 

So if you like, a character with two Runes of Fire doesn't have a single rune that has two charges, he literally has two separate Runes of Fire which when combined on a single item produce a separate effect.



#3 Furstenburg

Furstenburg

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 106 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:22 AM

What he said! The book says that if you put a 2nd rune of the same type on to an item it gets the 'stacking' effect rather than repeating the first one. the only difference is the weapon rune of speed which simply adds additional +1 initiatives



#4 Lynn

Lynn

    Dwarf Hammerer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:51 AM

3 single runes of spell breaking on a talisman...

 

It does not take a person long to find points where if you allow runes to keep going on as a separate rune it breaks balance hard.

Is it cool? Yes then its not allowed :P



#5 JuQ

JuQ

    Dwarf Hammerer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 12:26 PM

3 single runes of spell breaking on a talisman...

 

It does not take a person long to find points where if you allow runes to keep going on as a separate rune it breaks balance hard.

Is it cool? Yes then its not allowed :P

This.

The new rune system was implemented mainly to avoid having a single runemisth with several dispells. So no, you can't have two +1 wound runes.

 

I'm not sure I like the new rune stacking system, we get more variety but we lose flexibility, and several stackings of runes don't worth the points.

My biggest complain is the Rune of Cleaving. They force us to pay for AP before getting +1 strength and if you want the strength you have to spend many points and two runes. Armor Piercing s kinda crappy to be put on a magic werapon n this book because we can get it from the Runesmith buff and it doesn't stack. If only having to iterations of AP gave you a -2 armour modifier...

On top of that the 3rd iteration of RoCleaving gives you KB when you already got AP and +1 strength, that should be HKB instead, or the KB being a separated master rune on its own. It could also be nice if at least the third rune was really cheap because you are giving KB to the guys that needs it least.



#6 Grungivaldi

Grungivaldi

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 53 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 12:58 PM

The part in each rune description where is says "2 runes of ____ gives ____" or "a second rune of ____ gives ____"

Side note: the runes that say "multiples have no effect" don't actually forbid you from taking multiples, it just doesn't do anything except let you skirt the rule of pride.

#7 Gimble Beren

Gimble Beren

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:28 PM

Ah, makes sense now.  I think the biggest thing was how they assigned points. Since they gave the stacked runes a different point value, I saw it being a single entity so to speak.  Like a more powerful single rune formed when two where place, which seemed different in my mind than placing to individual runes.

 

Thanks for the answers.



#8 Kinks

Kinks

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 146 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:35 PM

Perhaps a better way to consider or define the new rune system, is that multiples of the same rune, have a cumulative effect, as described.



#9 Furstenburg

Furstenburg

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 106 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 05:50 PM


3 single runes of spell breaking on a talisman...

It does not take a person long to find points where if you allow runes to keep going on as a separate rune it breaks balance hard.
Is it cool? Yes then its not allowed :P

This.
The new rune system was implemented mainly to avoid having a single runemisth with several dispells. So no, you can't have two +1 wound runes.

I'm not sure I like the new rune stacking system, we get more variety but we lose flexibility, and several stackings of runes don't worth the points.
My biggest complain is the Rune of Cleaving. They force us to pay for AP before getting +1 strength and if you want the strength you have to spend many points and two runes. Armor Piercing s kinda crappy to be put on a magic werapon n this book because we can get it from the Runesmith buff and it doesn't stack. If only having to iterations of AP gave you a -2 armour modifier...
On top of that the 3rd iteration of RoCleaving gives you KB when you already got AP and +1 strength, that should be HKB instead, or the KB being a separated master rune on its own. It could also be nice if at least the third rune was really cheap because you are giving KB to the guys that needs it least.

I agree I both love and hate the new rune system. It seems to give freedom and limit at the same time. For some reason we have very little access to increased strength or armour rerolls and some of the most interesting runes, such as challenge are gone.

I think it sums the book up. I really like what they have done with it but it could have been so much better while still being balanced. In warhammer you wait years for a much anticipated update only to find half the stuff that could have been done to improve it wasn't. At the minute some of that can be blamed on GW being unwilling to have large model releases, hence small number of new characters, kits and centre piece unit. The court cases have much to answer for. GW doesn't want other people getting in there first with unreleased models, understandably!

#10 Vorn Foehammer

Vorn Foehammer

    Dwarf Hammerer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:14 PM

So here's a question. What does 3 spellbreakers do? 1spelleater and 1spellbreaker? Does the " a third has no further effect" mean you cannot put it on?

#11 The Bearded Baron

The Bearded Baron

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 584 posts

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:16 PM

It means that it can be put on but will contribute no further effect in any way. 

 

The days of a three scroll hero will be missed!



#12 Kinks

Kinks

    Dwarf Warrior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 146 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:02 AM

So here's a question. What does 3 spellbreakers do? 1spelleater and 1spellbreaker? Does the " a third has no further effect" mean you cannot put it on?

 

The latter.

 

They cannot be counted as separate entities any longer.

 

The first rune always does 'X', a second of the same rune does 'X+Y', the third (as mentioned), does 'X+Y - nothing else'.

 

In no situation can you place runes on items that would allow you to have, X+X+XY for example.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: rules question, runes, rune, multiple runes

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users