View Single Post
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 16th, 2014, 01:14 PM
Hmm...I hadn't thought along those lines. But then, I'm not a "dick-you-over" kinda player either.

My $0.02 is that if the rules state that "multiples of this rune have no further effect", then you should be allowed to take additional runes. After all, if you couldn't take multiples, then why would they explicitly mention that situation? On the other hand, "have no further effect" could also be interpreted as not affecting ANYthing, be it granting special rules to the weapon, or affecting the Rule of Pride either.

Unfortunately, I'd vote to allow for multiples of a rune, at the same cost, which would indeed get around Rule of Pride. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but given the way the rules are written, it's hard to argue otherwise. This is also given the fact that other runes, such as Rune of the Furnace, doesn't mention anything about multiples. So I would argue that those that do mention it can be duplicated, and those that don't, can't.

As to RoSlowness, I'd rule that only one of the runes takes effect. That's because the RoSlowness states: "Any foes charging a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness...". So you could have 50 of them in the unit, but it's irrelevant; you're still charging A unit containing A standard bearing the rune.

As to whether their effects would stack, i.e., roll 2d6 and take the highest, I'd say yes. First, because RAW state "A second Rune of Slowness means...", versus the RoSanctuary which states "A standard bearing two Runes of Sanctuary...". So apparently the presence of multiple runes would stack, though I'm sure it's not the intent. However, if you're going to do that, you're essentially paying 70 points for the effects of a 50 rune stack that you'll probably only use once or twice in a game. If you want to do that, knock yourself out.
ghstgry is offline   #63 Reply With Quote