Theres abit of a debate going on Wether the IG Astopaths abilitys stack?
I currently have not got the Rulebook to hand to chrck mysself.
My local GW are saying no they dont but i sure they do.
What are your opinions?

Wrong forum

Search the right one. This has been discussed to GREAT lengths.

Yes, they stack. There are those on here who will try to make the argument, but in my personal opinion and that of about 70% of the posters on this forum, it's a very specious argument.

Just because you say they do, I shall say they don't. (Yay Devils Advocate!)

They do not stack, because their rules do not say they do.
The Astropath says "Add one to your reserve rolls".

You have two astropaths. You Roll your dice. You Add one. Both Astropaths are happy now because you have added one to the dice. Same for OotF

Btw, Astropaths Add one to YOU reserves, Officer of the Fleets Subtract from the enemies.

...Not even trying to be sigged, but Gwar! is right, imho.

I think if they didnt stack the rules would state that you can only get a max of +1 per roll or that you can only take one of them in an army.

I must say I love all of the people that try to constantly find ways to nerf new armies. These are the same people who say Valkyires are not treated as normal transports.

I mean comon, the new IG are not that tough. The only debate I can see that legitimate is the Hot Shot Lasguns getting the benifits FRFSRF.

broxus wrote:I think if they didn't stack the rules would state to a max of +1 per rule. RAW say you can.

Actually, that is a Fallacious Argument. The rules must say they stack, or they don't. The rules tell you what you can do. The rules do not say they stack, so they do not.

The rules also do not say they don't stack, which is what is causing the confusion.

Note: I play IG. Fluffy Infantry line IG. Stacking would be a dream for me, but I still dont think it does.

Also, Gwar! is once more correct. Damn his hide.

ALSO, what are you about to do when i have guaranteed arrival by turn 4 (possible numbers fail?) for my stormtroopers (and scout sentinels) from stacking bonuses?

Shrug,

Well lets hope the FAQs come out. I will say that thankfully i havent run across people who say you cant do this or use Valkyire's as normal transports.

I am convinced that if they didnt want them to stack they would have limited them to 0-1 choices. I mean with your logic if you have the MOA you would only get one pie plate per turn also since it doesnt say you can fire two of them.

I also have a popcicle stick to put on the ramp of the Valkyire to make it touch the ground if anyone says my guys cant disembark or embark. It will be a wooden plank for them to walk on.

broxus wrote:Well lets hope the FAQs come out. I will say that thankfully i havent run across people who say you cant do this or use Valkyire's as normal transports.

Well they are quite within their rihts to call it.

broxus wrote:I am convinced that if they didnt want them to stack they would have limited them to 0-1 choices. I mean with your logic if you have the MOA you would only get one pie plate per turn also since it doesnt say you can fire two of them.

Apart from things that do not use FoC Selections, GW no longer has arbitrary 0-x limits on anything anymore. Which is why you can take 2 Chapter Masters for example.

I also have a popcicle stick to put on the ramp of the Valkyire to make it touch the ground if anyone says my guys cant disembark or embark. It will be a wooden plank for them to walk on.

Then you are not using fully GW models and you wont be able to play in any Tournaments that only allow GW models. Plus if you want to ruin an Expensive model by gluing crap on it, be my guest.

Actually it would come to a roll off Gwar, since they cant show 100% they cant stack. I would also then use the MOA and mortar trick (which is complete BS BTW)

In regards to the Valkyire, i wouldnt actually glue a stick to the model thats insane, i would simply put a piece of scotch tape to attach it to the current ramp to extend it to the ground with wooden plank or use a wire cable to touch the ground. It would be a conversion so it would perfectly legal to use unless no conversions at all are allowed at the tournment but thats VERY doubtful.

Gwar! wrote:Then you are not using fully GW models and you wont be able to play in any Tournaments that only allow GW models. Plus if you want to ruin an Expensive model by gluing crap on it, be my guest.

Sure he can, US GTs (ie GW official tournies) only require a certain percentage to be GW model or parts thereof....................... Somehow I think the popsicle stick, while silly, would meet the percentage necessary to be legal for GW tournies.

As to the original question, Gwar is probably correct at this time. The counterargument is that the Autarch ability, which is similar, does stack and therefor the IG ability should also stack. But it will take an FAQ to make it clear either way. I've only been running one and probably droppong both the Astopath and Master of the Fleet, so I really don't care one way or the other.

I thought in 5th Edition you had to wait longer than your second post in a thread to use any Nazi related argument...

Modquisition on. Nazi references being removed. Lets maintain a modicum of decency people, garghh.

Frazzled wrote:Modquisition on. Nazi references being removed. Thats maitainin a modicum of decency people, garghh.

But Godwins law :(

I disagree with the devil's advocate arguement

Mark of Khorne = +1 to attacks
Having an extra CCW = +1 to attacks..

Well you only get +1 to attacks, both abilities conditions are fulfilled.

Seems to me its all cumulative. Addition is addition, it should not make a difference whether its reserve rolls, who gets first turn, how many attacks you get, morale checks, etc... therefore I believe unless otherwise stated you add up the bonuses for the Astropath and Master of the Fleet.

Gwar! wrote:Just because you say they do, I shall say they don't. (Yay Devils Advocate!)

They do not stack, because their rules do not say they do.
The Astropath says "Add one to your reserve rolls".

You have two astropaths. You Roll your dice. You Add one. Both Astropaths are happy now because you have added one to the dice. Same for OotF

Btw, Astropaths Add one to YOU reserves, Officer of the Fleets Subtract from the enemies.

There is a huge flaw in your argument, because different effects DO stack. You don't get +2 attacks for having 2 marks of Khorn do you? You don't get +2 Cover save for buying two camo cloaks. You don't get +2 Attacks for having 3 CCW.

You DO get +2 for having MoK AND 2 CCW, you do get +2 to Cover save for Having a Camo Cloak and Going to Ground.

Two Astropaths are the same thing, so they wouldn't stack, because once you add ONE to the roll, you satisfy both models special rules. You can't Add two because the rules do not say you can add two.

And it is not a Devils Advocate Argument, that is my interpretation of the rules.

At risk of ending up part of his signature, I find myself agreeing with 'Gwar!'. The same rule does not apply more then once to something, and that's different from 2 rules that produce the same effect.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:At risk of ending up part of his signature, I find myself agreeing with 'Gwar!'. The same rule does not apply more then once to something, and that's different from 2 rules that produce the same effect.

Master Strategist absolutely stacks.


GWAR, you have a ridiculous counter argument. I'm done posting on this topic.

1. You are not allowed the option to purchase multiple marks, so I can't say what happens if you were to have 2 marks of khorne... its just impossible.
2. You are by the 5th ed. rulebook not allowed to use more than 2 single handed weapons at a time, therefore having more than one addtional close combat weapon can't confer another benefit. Another impossible situation.
3. And you can get a 2+ cover save with rangers (eldar) and going to ground, imperial camo cloaks would be the same unless they state otherwise.


BYE

Nope they stack, this is not the 1st time this ability has been seen and GW did make an official ruling in the eldar codex.

"Q: If an army has two Autarchs does it get +2 to its reserve rolls?

A: The player may choose to add +1, +2 or no bonus."

...While the Autarch is alive you may add 1 to your reserve rolls when rolling for reserves...

While the astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls.

As you can clearly see the two abilities have very similar wording, and GW answered in the Q&A section not the errata section meaning its a clarification. There is no justification claiming that the abilities do not stack.

GWAR! YOU SIR ARE WRONG!

Sazzlefrats wrote:GWAR, you have a ridiculous counter argument. I'm done posting on this topic.

Translation: I can't coime up with a counter Argument so I give up

Sazzlefrats wrote:And you can get a 2+ cover save with rangers (eldar) and going to ground, imperial camo cloaks would be the same unless they state otherwise.

Urrrm... yes, that is what I said? I think? "you do get +2 to Cover save for Having a Camo Cloak and Going to Ground."

Sazzlefrats wrote:BYE

And yet you still haven't proven why they stack. Using the Eldar Codex as a Precedent is a Logical Fallacy. What works in one codex does not automatically mean the same for another. In Fact, GW had to FAQ it to have it work as stacking, so until they do the same for Guard, it doesn't stack.

Red_Lives wrote:Nope they stack, this is not the 1st time this ability has been seen and GW did make an official ruling in the eldar codex.

"Q: If an army has two Autarchs does it get +2 to its reserve rolls?

A: The player may choose to add +1, +2 or no bonus."

...While the Autarch is alive you may add 1 to your reserve rolls when rolling for reserves...

While the astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls.

As you can clearly see the two abilities have very similar wording, and GW answered in the Q&A section not the errata section meaning its a clarification. There is no justification claiming that the abilities do not stack.

GWAR! YOU SIR ARE WRONG!

Oh WELL THEN! Sod it! Do you mind if I use the Tyranind FAQ for my WH army then??? The wording is Different, The Autarch is Optional. they are different armies... why would the Eldar FAQ have anything to do with the Guard army?

ITT: People who Cheat

All my quoting the eldar faq shows that historically the ability to add to reserve rolls is cumulative. The wording is not exact, but it is consistent enough to be relevant to the current discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is nothing wrong with using the Eldar Codex as a Precedent, the wording of the abilities is strikingly similar, so in the time it takes GW to FaQ the IG codex all we have to go by is the IG codex and previous GW rulings on similar abilities.

Red_Lives wrote:And there is nothing wrong with using the Eldar Codex as a Precedent

Yes there is, because it is not the IG codex. And by your own admition, the wording is not the same, so using it as a Precedent is idiotic to say the least

The ability to add to reserve rolls is cumulative, it has historically been so and still remains that way.

Using the Eldar Codex as a Precedent is valid because the ability is similar, and a ruling allowing stacking was approved.

So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

The wording is not exact, but it is consistent enough to be relevant to the current discussion.

Red_Lives wrote:So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

No, we don't. Using other Armies FAQs is the same as using another armies codex.

I hope you don't mind me using ork Boyz in my Space Wolf Army next should we ever play, since that is what you seem to think is allowed to be done.

That argument is absurd,
I WIN!

All i said was that until a FAQ comes out use previous faqs on questions that arise on abilities with similar wording.

Red_Lives wrote:All i said was that until a FAQ comes out use previous faqs on questions that arise on abilities with similar wording.

What lets you use the FAQ of another army for your army? Nothing, because you cannot. The only things one may use are the Rulebook, their Codex, and their Codex's Errata and FAQ. Those are the only official things you may use when playing the game. If you want to add other things (such as house rules, INATFAQ or the ridiculous "I'm using the Eldar FAQ with my Guard Army" situation you propose), it is by mutual agreement only.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

No, we don't. Using other Armies FAQs is the same as using another armies codex.

I hope you don't mind me using ork Boyz in my Space Wolf Army next should we ever play, since that is what you seem to think is allowed to be done.

This is just a ridiculous argument. Red Lives brings up a good point showing how GW structures rules formation. He's not trying to graft Eldar rules onto IG, he's addressing consistent language structure by the rule maker.

Furthermore, GW is aware that players may look to other codices and rules for guidance and in these situations will explicitly address these issues if it DOESN'T want players to do so. (See Daemonhunter hellguns vs. Hot Shot Lasguns.)

OK what we have here is a classic Pythagorean Vs Aristotle debate.

Pythagorean belief- One must show evidence to to use in a discussion. To prove existence

Aristotle belief- Prove me wrong

Gwar has clearly taken the Aristotle side, which is pure insanity. Since using that he could say "i have a green alien sitting on my shoulder that only i can see." And noone will be able to disprove it.

I have shown historical evidence to use in my discussion, that is only to be used until a Guard FAQ comes out.

he however has shown no evidence that the ability shouldn't stack and has merely taken the "prove me wrong" standpoint.

Spiff wrote:Furthermore, GW is aware that players may look to other codices and rules for guidance and in these situations will explicitly address these issues if it DOESN'T want players to do so. (See Daemonhunter hellguns vs. Hot Shot Lasguns.)

Please. GW No more know what their Players want/do than they know which hand to wipe with in the morning.

For all your High Horsing and "Oh This is GW WANTS you to do", I have yet to see a single shred of proof.

But this is getting to the point where the one camp are just butting heads with the other, resulting in YET ANOTHER locked thread and no good will come of it until GW pull their fists out of their rectums and issue an FAQ.

@Red_Lives: No, you prove yourself right. Nothing in the wording states it stacks. Once you add ONE to your reserves roll, both Astropaths special Rules have been applied. That is my proof to show I am Right. You are the one asking for me to prove you wrong when you say it does stack.

I have shown that historically abilities to add to reserve rolls are cumulative. One astropath adds +1 to reserve rolls, and second astropath adds another +1.

You have shown no evidence or Precedent to support your belief that the abilities do not stack.

Red_Lives wrote:You have shown no evidence or Precedent to support your belief that the abilities do not stack.

The rules do not say they do. "It doesn't say I can't" is not how 40k works, and you know it.

Precedent means nothing in 40k, especially precedent from a codex not written for 5th edition. Until GW Errata or FAQ this, RAW they do not stack, no matter how much you wail and whine.

You have still yet to show evidence to prove your point of view.

Red_Lives wrote:You have still yet to show evidence to prove your point of view.

Yes I did:
The rules do not say they do. "It doesn't say I can't" is not how 40k works.

And I didn't even have to wedge in 4 or 5 other codexs to do it!

Are you able to prove it without having to rely on other codexs that have no bearing on it?

Yes the rules are cumulative, that point is clear the main rule book explicitly states what abilities are not cumulative. (re-rolls, additional melee attacks, etc)

Look at it like this:
Whilst the astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls. (+1)

Whilst the astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls. (+1)

I have the bonus twice, i paid points to have the bonus twice. It states "The astopath" (Singular), "not whilst astropaths are on the table" (plural)

meaning they are two separate bonuses that happen to do the same thing.

I have shown HISTORICAL evidence that this is true.

You still have yet to show any reason they shouldn't stack. IMHO the rules do say they stack from just the Guard codex. Since +1 +1=+2

Red_Lives wrote:You still have yet to show any reason they shouldn't stack.

You know, repeating this does not make it true.
I have shown they dont stack. Namely, the rules do not say they do.

But fine, I'll explain it to you:
Imperial Guard Player begins his turn, and has 2 Astropaths. He then rolls his reserve dice, for a result of 3.

Both Astropaths are checking for their special rule:
Astropath One: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: False)
Astropath Two: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: False)

You then add one to the dice for a result of 4:
Astropath One: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: True)
Astropath Two: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: True)
Therefore, adding just one satisfies both Astropaths Special Rule.

Furthermore, your fallacious argument of "I paid for it twice so it must work twice cause that's what the GW peoples want" is incorrect. For all you know the intent could be to add redundancy in case one was killed. Considering that is what the rule does, I would assume that was also the intent.

1st of all i must apologise for sticking this in the wrong forum.
This has not half opened up a can of worms.
It looks as if it maybe be another on for the FAQ and i have a feeling that they will say they wont stack.
Either way its fine for me as i will stick a officer of the fleet in.
Gw have cocked up twice with 2 big ones! this and the darn Valk base.

How does (+1)+(+1)not equal (+2)

I just can't understand how they won't stack. Since to me it reads very clearly that they do in-fact stack, and historically abilities that add to reserve rolls in-fact stack.

There are 2 astropaths on the table.

While astropath A is alive i get a +1 to my reserve rolls. While Astropath B is alive i get another +1 for a total of +2. I just can't understand how this can not be the case RAW or RAI.

Red_Lives wrote:How does (+1)+(+1)not equal (+2)

I just can't understand how they won't stack. Since to me it reads very clearly that they do in-fact stack, and historically abilities that add to reserve rolls in-fact stack.

There are 2 astropaths on the table.

While astropath A is alive i get a +1 to my reserve rolls. While Astropath B is alive I get another +1 for a total of +2. I just can't understand how this can not be the case RAW or RAI.

Read my post, I explained it out in minute detail. You Add one and both Astropaths rules are satisfied.

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it must be wrong.

I agree with Red_Lives.

This debate reminds me of a long ago debate between Stelek and the rest of the forum on if Chaos Sorcerers with Wings take dangerous terrain tests. The rules said they move like Jump Infantry but did not specify if they became Jump Infantry, the argument was that the rules never specifically stated that they are Jump Infantry. It was shown through evidence that similar situations had occurred and in those situations they took dangerous terrain tests. Although I did defend Stelek's side until the evidence was brought up. Or at least I shut up once evidence was produced.

The funny thing about trying to use a FAQ to set a precedent is that you can almost always find one to support your position. For example, one could use this FAQ for the old Chapter Approved Sisters of Battle army list as a 'precedent' for this situation:

Q. Are the attack penalties of the Flail of Chastisement:
a) ‘stackable’ (ie, if you have two models with Flails in base-to-base contact with an enemy model, would it lose two attacks down to a minimum of one),
b) applied once per model no matter how many Flails of Chastisement are in contact with it or,
c) something else?

A. b

Q. Similarly, are the morale penalties from two or more Blades of Admonition:
a) cumulative,
b) only applied once per unit, or
c) something else?

A. b

Now I honestly have no idea which way GW intended for it to be played in this situation, but trying to claim that an unrelated FAQ sets some sort of 'precedent' is just ridiculous.

My point is using the eldar FAQ is that the ability is almost the same. It was the last time an ability of this nature occurred.

40k has no rules for stacking modifiers. Therefore, the simplest, most intuitive route, is simply add all modifiers to any roll which triggers them.

Red_Lives wrote:OK what we have here is a classic Pythagorean Vs Aristotle debate.

Pythagorean belief- One must show evidence to to use in a discussion. To prove existence

Aristotle belief- Prove me wrong

You sound edumacated more gooder! (I originally mispelled edumacated)

willydstyle wrote:40k has no rules for stacking modifiers. Therefore, the simplest, most intuitive route, is simply add all modifiers to any roll which triggers them.

Agreed.

In declaring that the rules do not say _____ therefore _____ does not exist, you are assuming that GW rules are exhaustive (we know that's not the case) and that the game is made somehow better by adherence to the strictest interpretation.

In other words, where in the rulebook does it say that I can deploy a squad in a non-dedicated transport?

Do you disallow this in games you play?

Same argument for the stacking of astropaths. If you truly believe that 1+1=1, then I hope you never begin turn 1 with a Wolf Lord inside a Land Raider.

roll a D6

The Astropath is not a UNIQUE character, therefore can be taken twice, thus allowing its ability to stack

Just because you can take him twice is not proof that the ability can stack (see the FAQ I quoted above for two examples of items that could be taken twice which do NOT stack).

I see merit in both sides of the argument.
Regarding the anti-stack side:
The rule states that "you" (The player) add one to the reserve roll. Since you add the one, this would satisfy both astropaths simultaneously. In addition, the second part of the rule states that you may re-roll outflanking, and you cannot re-roll a re-roll, suggesting the rule only takes effect once.
Regarding the pro-stack side:
The article "the" is used, meaning specific. "Add 1" is a command. Since there are two specific astropaths, the command is completed twice. "You" still "add" one, just twice because each astropath gives "you" the command to "add."

I lean more towards the pro side. However, I would still ask my opponent beforehand, and I would ask judges immediately at a tournament. An FAQ is badly needed.

I agree with red_lives that they stack.

willydstyle wrote:40k has no rules for stacking modifiers. Therefore, the simplest, most intuitive route, is simply add all modifiers to any roll which triggers them.

This is all that needs to be said.

And using a like situation with a like ability can set a precedent.

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

FAQ explains that you may add 1, 2 or none if you have two atuarchs. That would be precedent to another HQ that has the same ability.

The Flail is an item that removes attacks. Precedent would be set for other items that remove attacks when used in multiple.

Gwar is just trying to carry a good argument for the other side. It just doesn't work though.

And again, trying to use a FAQ for a different situation as a 'precedent' is ridiculous. You can make up all of the reasons that you want that one FAQ sets a precedent and another doesn't and you still have nothing that backs up your claims.

Not exactly sure how it is different, other than it being an Eldar FAQ and an Autarch.

Doesn't precedent mean using a ruling for a similar situation, which this is?

Unless now similar doesn't mean similar, or ruling, or an orange isn't even an orange....

And again, just because one FAQ happens to be about reserves does not mean that it sets a precedent and the others don't. None of them set a 'precedent' and the FAQs never once say that they set a 'precedent' for other situations, do they? No.

The FAQs never claim to be for anything other than the specific situation covered. If you want to claim that one FAQ sets a 'precedent', then anyone can claim that any other FAQ is a precedent as well and have just as valid a position as you do.

I disagree when abilities are worded similar in nature and function.

Q. Are the attack penalties of the Flail of Chastisement:
a) ‘stackable’ (ie, if you have two models with Flails in base-to-base contact with an enemy model, would it lose two attacks down to a minimum of one),
b) applied once per model no matter how many Flails of Chastisement are in contact with it or,
c) something else?

A. b

Q. Similarly, are the morale penalties from two or more Blades of Admonition:
a) cumulative,
b) only applied once per unit, or
c) something else?

A. b

Is not a similar ability to astropaths in wording and or function.

And again, that's nothing than an opinion. That does not make it a fact. Show us an actual rule that says it sets a precedent.

And yes, my example is indeed similar. It's two of the same thing. Seems similar enough for me.

But that's not the point, if there was an official ruling on the matter in one way or another it wouldn't be an issue, the point in bringing up other FAQs is a temporary solution until GW game designers get off their lazy asses and give us a relevant FAQ.

The trouble with your 'temporary' solution is that your trying to pass it off as more than just that. You're trying to pass it off as how it is. based on a FAQ for a different situations (Autarchs and not Astropaths). You never once said "the rules are unclear so this is how I'd play it" but you are saying "this is how it is".

And it's the best assumption we can make because there is no rule of law covering it (or FAQ). If there was another situation that was similar and on not stacking bonuses to reserve rolls, that would be a precedent the other way. It may be opinion, but that is precedent.

There is no real answer, what we are doing is searching for a similar situation in the rules, and applying, which is a precedent set on a like situation governing an HQ that provides a bonus to Reserve rolls, and whether or not it stacks. It lends credence to our supposition that it does stack, and in most cases throughout the rules modifiers do. There are very specific cases where they do not.

But all this is just argument, and since there is no clear answer, neither way is correct, but I am going with precedent

And yet again, it's still just an 'assumption'. It's not a fact. Plus added to the fact that there are other items which do NOT stack means that all you have is an opinion and not a 'precedent'. FAQs are not 'precedents' and never claim to be. You're still passing off an unrelated FAQ as something more than what it is.

Do you even know what a 'precedent' is?

Red_Lives wrote:Do you even know what a 'precedent' is?

It's like pattycake.

@ red_lives:

From everything he says, he understands what a precedent is. Maybe you need help understanding Ghaz's point.

You brought up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability stacking.

Ghaz proceeded to bring up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability not stacking.

The point Ghaz is making is that neither one can be considered a precedent, since both are for different units than the one in question, no matter how similar.

Since the precedents don't agree, we need to wait for clarification from GW in the form of an FAQ about this particular unit, since we have NO FAQ for this unit.

So, since the rules as written don't say you can, you cannot until it has been stated (by GW, not by you) that you can.

not exactly,
I brought up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability stacking, which had very similar wording and function.

Where Gaz brought up an unrelated ability in form and function.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to me by RAW its clear that the astropaths do stack from just the GW Guard codex.

both are for different units than the one in question, no matter how similar

I expressly stated the problem with your argument. Please do try to read more closely

Also, I'm glad it's clear to you, but it is not clear to everyone.

I'm certainly not trying to state that it will never stack. I expect it to be FAQ'd so that it will stack, as soon as GW gets around to it. That does not, however, make your arguments correct, and until it is officially fixed, I will play the astropaths as not stacking.

Red_Lives wrote:not exactly,
I brought up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability stacking, which had very similar wording and function.

Where Gaz brought up an unrelated ability in form and function.

Also to me by RAW its clear that the astropaths do stack from just the GW Guard codex.

Yes, TO YOU!
In reality they don't stack.

See what I did there?

How can you claim that two rules that do NOT have identical wording must have the same effect? Just because they Have similar wording is NOT good enough.

I am sorry Gwar! you are wrong on this one.

Your whole argument rests on the idea that the rule is singular unto it's self, therefore no matter how many models are on the table the conditions of said rule are met.

Let's look at the rule:

Whilst the Astropath is alive, you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls. In addition, if any of your units arrive using the outflank rule, you can re-roll the dice used to determine which board edge these sqauds arrives from.

The rule is clearly in the singular tense. Meaning one. While the singular astropath is alive you add 1. Since the condition is singular to the astropath model the ability will apply per model.

You would be correct if the rule was worded something to the effect of "A Imperial Guard force that includes an Astropath..." but that is not how it is worded. The rule is on a per Astropath bases and after that you just follow the conventions of math.

If it were per model, the rule would say per model.
If it would stack, the rule would say it stacks.

As I have pointed out, nowhere in the IG Codex or IG FAQ does it say either way if it stacks or not.

And as Humble As I am, I quote myself:

Gwar! wrote: And it was figured out. The answer is: Both Answers are correct and GW have 7 year old writers. And the 7 year olds are Howler Monkeys. And the Monkeys are French.,

Futrhermore, I am following the "conventions of math". Both astropaths ask for me to add one. I add one. Both Astropaths are now happy as larry. The only reason (and I do mean only) reason anyone argues otherwise is because they want to have their cake and Eat it.

If it were per model, the rule would say per model.

According to the rules of English it does say per model. The rule is written in a singular form, as long as that particular astropath is alive on the table you add +1. The rule is specifically refering to the astropath in a singular state, I.E. referring to the model itself (as all the rules in the 40k rulebook are written in reference to the physical depiction of the unit, I can quote all those rules again if you wish.)

If it would stack, the rule would say it stacks.

The rules don't have to say specifically that it stacks. The rule simply states that as long as that astropath is alive you add 1. Math is math, if you have multiple +1 results you add them together, unless addition has become some other definition that I am not aware of.

As I have pointed out, nowhere in the IG Codex or IG FAQ does it say either way if it stacks or not.

Again, it doesn't have to. It is simple addition, and failing a specific rule we use the rules of Math and English. Unless you are implying we need a rule in the rulebook that tells us to use math!

Futrhermore, I am following the "conventions of math". Both astropaths ask for me to add one. I add one. Both Astropaths are now happy as larry. The only reason (and I do mean only) reason anyone argues otherwise is because they want to have their cake and Eat it.

I personally have no stake in this argument.

You are trying to make an argument by disecting the rule. You have to take the sentence in it's entirety.

P1: As long as the single astropath is alive you add +1 to the die roll.
P2: You are allowed to field multiple Astropaths.
C: You add 1 per Astropath.

The real argument you could make is whether the rule is singular to one astropath model or not. But you cannot remove the reference to add 1 without the context of the rest of the rule.

P1:Astropath 1: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
P2: Astropath 2: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
C: You add 1 as long as the Astropath (1 or 2) is alive.

As I have said COUNTLESS times (as noone is bothering to listen) once you have added one, Both your astopaths special rules have been satisfied. If the rules said for EACH astopath, then it would stack, but it doesn't, so they don't

P1:Astropath 1: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
P2: Astropath 2: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
C: You add 1 as long as the Astropath (1 or 2) is alive.

I am sorry, but this is laughable wrong.

As I have said COUNTLESS times (as noone is bothering to listen) once you have added one, Both your astopaths special rules have been satisfied. If the rules said for EACH astopath, then it would stack, but it doesn't, so they don't

No they haven't, because the rule is singular to the one astropath. You have to satisfy both Astropaths special rule.

This is simple, and answer me this. Is there one instance of the rule in use or two?

The rule is worded to be tied to one model. If there are two of said models, you have to satisfy both instances of said rule. Simple.

Oh OK, just dismiss me off as "laughably wrong". And here I was thinking we could have a mature discussion. I guess I was wrong. *Shrug*

I'm done with this thread. I have made my point, I have proven my counter-points wrong, and yet people still insist on refusing to have a mature discussion. I'm out before the lock if you don't mind.

No disrespect to you Gwar!, I felt we where having a mature discussion. If anything, my previous point was in response to your logical outline, not your argument in itself. I apologize for any offense.

I still believe you could have debated me on the issue of the singular stance of the rule or the multiple instances of said rule, but I can understand your desire to stop your personal frustration, just like I did in the Rities of Battle/Weaken Resolve thread.

At the end of the day, you know how people are going to play this.

Painful debate. I don't see where adding one to the die roll result for each astropath would be incorrect though?

Out of curiosity...How does the astropath rule differ from the Autarch rule?

Uhm, Gwar, "You don't get +2 Attacks for having 3 CCW." is incorrect. Ork Dreads get bonus attacks for having 3 CCW. The limit is how many the model can use (2 for infantry) not how many it has.

Also, you are saying that the +1 fullfils a "requirement" for the astropath. I think you are seeing it from the wrong direction. The +1 is an output, not a requirement. In otherwords, the requirement to be fullfilled is that the astropath (THE astropath, not A astropath) is alive. If that is the case, then you must add +1 to the roll.

Were adding +1 to your roll a requirement that could be satisfied by some other factor, it would have to be another output for it to drive, such as "If +1 is not added to your roll, the astropath explodes" or something.

However, I do totally agree with you here that the issue is largely due to GW not having a technical, rules based writer, instead having someone who can kind of get an idea across in prose.

Rangerrob wrote:Out of curiosity...How does the astropath rule differ from the Autarch rule?

1) The astropath rule is found in the IG Codex, the Autarch is found in the Eldar Codex.
2) Read both codex's. The wording is different. Similar, but that is not sufficient to say it is the same.

Wehrkind wrote:Uhm, Gwar, "You don't get +2 Attacks for having 3 CCW." is incorrect. Ork Dreads get bonus attacks for having 3 CCW. The limit is how many the model can use (2 for infantry) not how many it has

My Comment was referring to basic infantry, so I am not incorrect. Furthermore, the rules for DCCW Specifically say they stack/give additional. Astropaths do not have a similar qualifier, hence they do not stack. It honestly is THAT simple yet people still go on about how it's not.

Okay the rules for furious charge do not say it doesn't stack so my Death Company lead by Corbulo is S6 I6 whenever they charge into assault. This is just as valid as two astropaths stacking.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay the rules for furious charge do not say it doesn't stack so my Death Company lead by Corbulo is S6 I6 whenever they charge into assault. This is just as valid as two astropaths stacking.

G

Indeed. Its also the same as Two Waaaagh! banners. They also do not stack. But, C'est la Vie. It's always a case of wanting your cake and eating it too (To Channel Ben Croshaw: A Phrase I have never understood. I mean, what else would you want to do with a cake)

The debate basically comes down to the two different ways of looking at how the astropath rule operates:

1) As a steady state effect. If an astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a general effect created by having astropaths in the field, having more than one astropath deployed doesnt increase the effect that they produce, since they are simply adjusting

2) As a specific bonus to the die roll. If the astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a specific bonus that the model is supplying to the die roll, so since the rules allow multiple adjustments to die rolls then each model will add a +1.



There is no need for the rule to tell us whether or not the +1s would stack if it is case 2. If each model adds +1 then the rules would have to specifically tell us that the bonuses do not stack, otherwise we would have to add +1 for each astropath since that is what the RAW would be telling us to do.
If its case 1 then again the rules wouldnt have to tell us anything about stacking since there is only one +1 no matter how many astropaths are on the table.


Personally I would prefer for them not to stack

But Im not so certain that is the case, since the rule isnt crystal clear.

Since we do not have a clear rule either way I would think this probably ends up as a roll off, unless we can somehow determine which case applies.


Using the eldar faq certainly doesnt prove anything, but since it is the closest similar effect it should probably be considered when making any tournement rulings.


The officer of the fleet rule is very similar in wording, so that rule would again seem to hinge on whether or not these effects are a steady state condition.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth that is well presented to show both sides of the debate as I understand them. Here is my take on this (I'm going to refer to your cases in my description):

In case 1 you are not following the wording of the description of the Astropath's ability. As previously discussed in this thread, the ability uses the following wording: "whilst the astropath is alive..." rather than: "whilst an astropath is alive..." This makes the ability specific, which is congruent with case 2 in your post.

The Officer of the fleet uses the same specific language ("whilst the officer of the fleet is alive") which implies that it functions the same way as the Astropath's ability with reguards to whether or not having multiple Officers in the army deducts multiple points from each opposing reserves roll.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay the rules for furious charge do not say it doesn't stack so my Death Company lead by Corbulo is S6 I6 whenever they charge into assault. This is just as valid as two astropaths stacking.

G

No, it's not even close to the same thing. In this case, the unit has an ability (Furious Charge). To learn what this ability does we flip to the relevant page and read the descriptor. The special character that grants the ability to the squad is simply redundant; the unit has access to Furious Charge again, which simply refers you to the same ability. You can have ninety special abilities that unlock Furious Charge, but the net effect will simply be to give your unit access to the one special rule.

A more accurate comparison would be Furious Charge and Nemesis Force Weapons. Nemesis Force Weapons as a piece of wargear increase the user's strength by 2. Furious Charge increases the model's strength by 1 while charging. Through simple math this becomes a cumulative +3.

Likewise Go to Ground improves cover saves by 1. Scout camo cloaks improve their cover save by 1. When scouts Go to Ground, their cover save becomes 2+.

So the same with Astropaths. The way the ability is written, 'while the astropath is alive', the bonus is not related to an overarching special rule, like Furious Charge. If it were, it would be written 'while an astropath is alive'. Since it's in the singular, the rule is linked to that specific model and the effects are cumulative dependent on the number of that model you have on the board.

And yet again, you have shown that Two Different things do stack. Woo hoo, that's EXACTLY what I said.

If you say two Astropaths stack, do you say Two instances of FC stack? Or that Two Waaagh banners stack? Why are two SEPARATE instances of FC or Waagh banner any different to two SEPARATE Astropaths?

I'll save you the time. They are not, because neither Dual Astropaths, dual FC or Dual Waaaagh! Stack.

GWAR! You play it how you want. Us who actually play FOR the enjoyment of the game will play it another way. Its clear that most people know that astropath's stack (until GW FAQ's it) and we will continue to play it as such. Since both camps can provide RAW that their side is right. We should just really stop the round and round discussion, noone can prove anyone else wrong, (As the nature of the Aristotle belief system) and both sides have evidence to support their claim, we can only wait for the people at GW to make a FAQ.

Red_Lives wrote:GWAR! You play it how you want. Us who actually play FOR the enjoyment of the game will play it another way. Its clear that most people know that astropath's stack (until GW FAQ's it) and we will continue to play it as such. Since both camps can provide RAW that their side is right. We should just really stop the round and round discussion, noone can prove anyone else wrong, (As the nature of the Aristotle belief system) and both sides have evidence to support their claim, we can only wait for the people at GW to make a FAQ.

Translation: I know I am dead wrong and want to save face by insulting the other side by claiming he is an Unfun git who doesn't play the game to have fun.

Ad Hominem attacks are FUN!

Your comment about you wanting to play for the enjoyment of the game and me not, of course I play for enjoyment. Why else would I play? I have yet to see proof that they Stack, while I have my proof in the codex, (it does not say they do) and have shown multiple times why it doesn't, and have not had to refer to other armies FAQ's for it either.

And that's a continuation of the same sloppy argument that GBF tried to apply. The Waaagh! banner is written in the same way as Furious Charge; a mob containing a Waaagh banner has +1 WS. You can have ninety Waaagh banners and you only get +1 WS because the beneficiary is 'a mob'. To be similar to an astropath, it would have to be written 'a model with a Waaagh banner grants +1 to mob WS'.

Two separate instances of FC or Waaagh Banner are different from two separate Astropaths because both FC and Waaagh Banner simply unlock access to an ability, and that ability grants a flat +1 increase.

Astropaths, on the other hand, link the effect to the model. If the model is alive, the effect is in play. Multiple models create cumulative effect because that's the way it's written. You [Gwar] only have an argument if you completely disregard how the rules are written.

I have yet to see proof that they Stack, while I have my proof in the codex, (it does not say they do) and have shown multiple times why it doesn't, and have not had to refer to other armies FAQ's for it either.

Your 'proof' is based on ignoring the construction of the rules. If you throw out the rules, then yeah, you can prove anything.

So exactly why is it clear that astropaths stack? Because you say that an unrelated FAQ sets some sort of 'precedent'? That's nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is that there is more than a reasonable doubt that they might not stack since there's evidence of two like items NOT stacking. You can go on and on all that you want, but your opinion has no more validity than anyone else's.

Again, the FAQs never say that they're for anything other than the specific case that they're for. The FAQ covering Autarchs is for Autarchs ONLY. They never once say that they're a 'precedent' for anything else nor do they indicate how to use them to set a 'precedent'.

You claim you play for the enjoyment of the game, yet you're trying to cram an unrelated FAQ down our throats as some sort of proof that you're right. Hardly what I call 'enjoyment of the game'.

sourclams wrote:Astropaths, on the other hand, link the effect to the model. If the model is alive, the effect is in play. Multiple models create cumulative effect because that's the way it's written. You [Gwar] only have an argument if you completely disregard how the rules are written.

Yes it links the Effect to the Model, the effect of Adding one to the reserve roll. Nowhere does it say it is for every Astropath, nor does it say it stacks with other astropaths. If you have two on the board, you add one to the reserve, and both Models special rule has been applied, that of Adding one to the reserve roll.

Again, I Am following how the rule is written. You are adding in "for every" into the rule. I on the other hand am following what is laid down in the IG codex.

P.S.: Ghaz, stop agreeing with me, you're starting to scare me! Who are you and what have you done with Ghaz! <==== Another Obligatory Mod Requested Smilie to show that the preceding comment is in good nature and light hearted.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:GWAR! You play it how you want. Us who actually play FOR the enjoyment of the game will play it another way. Its clear that most people know that astropath's stack (until GW FAQ's it) and we will continue to play it as such. Since both camps can provide RAW that their side is right. We should just really stop the round and round discussion, noone can prove anyone else wrong, (As the nature of the Aristotle belief system) and both sides have evidence to support their claim, we can only wait for the people at GW to make a FAQ.

Translation: I know I am dead wrong and want to save face by insulting the other side by claiming he is an Unfun git who doesn't play the game to have fun.

Ad Hominem attacks are FUN!

Your comment about you wanting to play for the enjoyment of the game and me not, of course I play for enjoyment. Why else would I play? I have yet to see proof that they Stack, while I have my proof in the codex, (it does not say they do) and have shown multiple times why it doesn't, and have not had to refer to other armies FAQ's for it either.

Said from the guy who won't let Banshees still strike 1st through cover. You are a stickler for the most minor of minor details. In most clubs said person is usually referred to TFG.

I believe i am right and have evidence to support my claim. (in both Precedent and grammatical usage in the rule, I.E. Singular usage of Astropath)

You believe you are right and have evidence to support your claim.

The debate should be ended and the thread should be locked as we have now begun the pointless attacks on eachother's character.

Except that you're not. The rule says 'whilst the Astropath is alive, you add 1...' If you I have two Astropaths that are alive, and I roll my Reserve Roll, and I add 1 for one Astropath, and I do not add 1 for one Astropath, then I just broke the rules.

You can claim that you're following the rule as it is written, except that you're not; you just ignored half of the rule. You added 1, but you did not do it enough times.

Simply prove my grammar is wrong and I'll happily concede. Hint: your old saw about adding 1 satisfies both Astroapths' rules doesn't work because the indicator is in the singular, not the plural.

Again, I Am following how the rule is written. You are adding in "for every" into the rule. I on the other hand am following what is laid down in the IG codex.

I am adding nothing to the rule. You, on the other hand, are ignoring half of it.

Red_Lives wrote:Said from the guy who won't let Banshees still strike 1st through cover. You are a stickler for the most minor of minor details. In most clubs said person is usually referred to TFG.

Yeah, I won't let them, because the rules do not let them. The same way the rules do not let me Autowin if I have an Inquisitor, or how the rules don't let me Deploy 97 Rhinos in Dawn of War. If you don't play by the rules to the letter, where does it stop? Eventually you stop playing Warhammer 40k and play HorribleHousehammer 40k.

Red_Lives wrote:I believe i am right and have evidence to support my claim. (in both Precedent and grammatical usage in the rule, I.E. Singular usage of Astropath)

You believe you are right and have evidence to support your claim.

My "Belief" as you call it, is based on the actual Rules (something you obviously don't like playing by, as evidenced by your first point)

P.s: Just LOVE the bias by including your argument but not the counter-argument. Thats the way to win things!

Red_Lives wrote:The debate should be ended and the thread should be locked as we have now begun the pointless attacks on eachother's character.

Big words from someone who has done nothing but throw Personal Attacks about eh?

Sourclaims and I have shown from just the wording in the IG codex that the ability stacks.

You have used the same wording and claimed that it cannot stack.

By RAW we are both right. The problem is that RAW has many interpretations. Both Points are Valid.

I believe you are wrong and have shown evidence to suport this.

You believe that I am wrong and have shown evidence to support this.

The thread should be locked as nothing new can be provided at this point.

Gwar! wrote:If it were per model, the rule would say per model.
If it would stack, the rule would say it stacks.

As I have pointed out, nowhere in the IG Codex or IG FAQ does it say either way if it stacks or not.

And as Humble As I am, I quote myself:

Gwar! wrote: And it was figured out. The answer is: Both Answers are correct and GW have 7 year old writers. And the 7 year olds are Howler Monkeys. And the Monkeys are French.,

Futrhermore, I am following the "conventions of math". Both astropaths ask for me to add one. I add one. Both Astropaths are now happy as larry. The only reason (and I do mean only) reason anyone argues otherwise is because they want to have their cake and Eat it.

Your logic is terrible false, and simplistic:

I will apply your logic to a Tau situation, just for kicks:
Tau Player: "I passed two different Markerlight tests, and have decided to use them both to increase the BS of a Fire Warrior squad by +1"
You: "Well, if you increase their BS by +1 (to BS 4), then you have satisfied both Markerlight requirements"
Tau Player: Commences ass kicking...

Please respond directly to how this situation does not use your logic, and then let me know why it wouldn't apply (since the Markerlight rules don't specify that they stack...)

Tau codex specifically states they are allowed to stack (up to BS 5).
IG codex does not.


Thank you for proving my point.

Would you like to say I am right now?

Gwar! wrote:Tau codex specifically states they are allowed to stack (up to BS 5).
IG codex does not.


Thank you for proving my point.

Would you like to say I am right now?

So they Tau codex proves your point correct about the IG codex?

Now Gwar, you are arguing against your own logic earlier, that different codexes don't apply?

Or would you mind if I used the Tyranid codex for my Tau?

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Tau codex specifically states they are allowed to stack (up to BS 5).
IG codex does not.


Thank you for proving my point.

Would you like to say I am right now?

So they Tau codex proves your point correct about the IG codex?

Now Gwar, you are arguing against your own logic earlier, that different codexes don't apply?

Or would you mind if I used the Tyranid codex for my Tau?

Ha, i saw that coming a mile away (as i have plaed Tau for years and know the wording of that rule)

public class Astropath{
private boolean astropath1Alive;
private boolean astropath2Alive;
private int reserve;

public int useGwarLogic() {
if(astropath1Alive||astropath2Alive) reserve++;
return reserve;
}

public int useOtherLogic() {
if(astropath1Alive) reserve++;
if(astropath2Alive) reserve++;
return reserve;
}
}

Ok so i only know a little bit of java. But its pretty self explanatory.

The rules say "While THE astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls."
I check one astropath. Is he alive? Yes. Add one. I have satisfied the rules for that astropath. I have not satisfied the rules for the other astropath, as his rule refers to himself.
Check the other astropath. Is he alive? Yes. Add one.

If the rules said "While AN astropath" is alive, Gwar might have a point. If not, well... cumulative is the rules as written.

I will let a player stack the astropaths if I can stack furious charge.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I will let a player stack the astropaths if I can stack furious charge.

G

And Waaagh Banners!

Except stacking Furious Charge is not the same thing. But I don't have my rulebooks here so I won't argue the point on that particular one. A model either has the furious charge rule, or it doesn't. A model can't gain something it already has. You know it doesn't work that way, I know it doesn't work that way, and frankly that part isn't open for interpretation.


The rules here specifically apply to the astropath model. There is no reason, at all, to assume that when is says "The astropath" that it refers to a different astropath. Every single other rule in any book... forget it, that would be 'precedence' and that negates your weak argument so you ignore it. In the English language, "the" is definitive. THE astropath refers to a specific astropath. As opposed to AN, which is indefinite; AN astropath would refer to one of any of a group of astropaths.

If i had two astropaths on the table and I asked you to point to 'the astropath', you would answer 'which one?'. If i asked you to point to 'an' astropath, you could choose which one. I'll even paint them different colors and have a red Astropath and a blue astropath, just so they're easy to tell apart.
The rules for my red astropath say that "if the astropath" (THE referring in this case to the astropath who is in possession of this rule, the red astropath) "is alive then (blah blah)".
Same for the blue astropath. They are separate models, each with their own instance of the astropath rule.
I add 1 to reserves for each.

A red Astropath is still an astropath, no matter what Additional Criteria you are inventing for him.

The rules do not say for each astropath you add one. As I have shown before, the rules can be interpreted as only allowing a maximum of one to be added.

I honestly question your English comprehension skills if you can get that interpretation.

Yes, a red astropath is an astropath.
However, you are suggesting that he is The Blue astropath, which clearly, he is not.

Comparing this to furious charge is an obvious red herring. It doesnt matter how many times a unit has the ability furious charge, if 10 models in the units give the unit the furious charge ability then the unit still only has furious charge. We then go to the rules under furious charge to determine what bonus is applied. It doesnt matter how many times a unit is given the ability to fly, to furious charge, to run, feel no pain etc etc. The models are given an ability that we refer to under the universal special rules which describe how the effect operates.


The astropath question is different however, it is a complete rule in and of itself, and the question is whether or not the astropath rule sets a general condition or if it grants a specific bonus.



It may depend on how we view the game turn as progressing. Do all effects of this sort happen instantaneously at the same moment of the game turn? Or is this a triggered effect by the controlling player as he moves through his turn?


If effects like this are triggered automatically then it any number of astropaths would be setting a field condition for the game, so it would only take effect once.

If effects like this are used by the player then each astropath would be checked and used one at a time, so the effects would have to stack.


There just arent many other effects of this type in the game, so it may be unclear and not possible to be decided at this point. I dont have my eldar codex here atm but if the rule on autarchs is written in the same ambiguous manner then it is possible that the faq there may give us an answer.

Please note that I am using the faq idea NOT to use a codex specific rule in game play with a different codex. This would be using a faq to determine how GW treats a class of rules. It is *possible* that the autarch rule falls into the same class of rule as the astropath rule and if so it could be used to tell us how GW views this CLASS of rules. Of course, some people dont view the faqs as legal rules material so for them this info will be valueless.

At this point tho it looks like we dice for it, or make local house rules since nothing is definitive.


Sliggoth

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/05/bolscon-imperial-guard-q.html

There is starting to be a consensus that you are wrong Gwar. It says while THE astropath is alive add +1 to any of your reserve rules.

Your argument doesnt prove anything at all. If you follow the RAW you must give +1 while that model is alive and +2 if two are alive. Your trying to argue RAI and I havent seen any proof from to you the contrary.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I will let a player stack the astropaths if I can stack furious charge.

G

And Waaagh Banners!

"And that's a continuation of the same sloppy argument that GBF tried to apply. The Waaagh! banner is written in the same way as Furious Charge; a mob containing a Waaagh banner has +1 WS. You can have ninety Waaagh banners and you only get +1 WS because the beneficiary is 'a mob'. To be similar to an astropath, it would have to be written 'a model with a Waaagh banner grants +1 to mob WS'.

Two separate instances of FC or Waaagh Banner are different from two separate Astropaths because both FC and Waaagh Banner simply unlock access to an ability, and that ability grants a flat +1 increase.

Astropaths, on the other hand, link the effect to the model. If the model is alive, the effect is in play. Multiple models create cumulative effect because that's the way it's written. You [Gwar] only have an argument if you completely disregard how the rules are written. "

I'm self-quoting myself now.

If you ignore English and Math and half of the Telepathic Relay rule, then stacking Furious Charge and Astropaths is the same thing.

An astropath has the ability built in to add +1 to the reserve roll just like DC has furious assault. However Corbulo gives a unit the ability to use furious charge, so no it's not the same. But both examples are just as silly.

G

Whatever the "Consensus" is (protip: 40k Rules != Democracy), I will not admit I am wrong (because the rule can work both ways) until GW Errata it (no an FAQ is not enough).

Grab the popcorn lads.

Gwar! wrote:Whatever your "logical argument" is (protip: 40k Rules != Gwar!'s Dictatorship), I will not admit I am wrong (because I am Gwar and i am always right, see my sig) until GW Errata it (So i can bully people into playing my way for 10 years).

Grab the popcorn lads.

Fixed it for you.

Show me where it says they do not stack, as in, somewhere GW says that it does not stack (remembering that Codex trumps Rule Book), and then I could agree that it does not stack. Codex clearly states to add one for the Astropath, not "you may only add one to your reserve roll" or "you may only subtract one for their reserve roll" for more than one Officer of the Fleet and Astropath. Does it say anything like that? No, in fact it says something quite the opposite by not being that specific.

Gwar! wrote:Whatever the "Consensus" is (protip: 40k Rules != Democracy), I will not admit I am wrong (because the rule can work both ways) until GW Errata it (no an FAQ is not enough).

Grab the popcorn lads.

So, in an actual game where this issue comes up, where the opponent uses sourclams' reasoning, and you use your reasoning, how do you resolve it?

I don't think I've ever actually read how you deal with your rules conflicts in an actual game setting.

Cerine wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Whatever the "Consensus" is (protip: 40k Rules != Democracy), I will not admit I am wrong (because the rule can work both ways) until GW Errata it (no an FAQ is not enough).

Grab the popcorn lads.

So, in an actual game where this issue comes up, where the opponent uses sourclams' reasoning, and you use your reasoning, how do you resolve it?

I don't think I've ever actually read how you deal with your rules conflicts in an actual game setting.

If you are both adults and one of you can compromise, then great.

If not, find different people to play.

Cerine wrote:I don't think I've ever actually read how you deal with your rules conflicts in an actual game setting.

I believe it is addressed in the rulebook. It is the dreaded 'd6 for it!' "rule".

Anyway...



Inching ever so closer...

Fire in the whole.

Travsi, careful. If you don't like the post, attack the post and not the poster. It's a fine line sometimes, but you crossed it.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

No, we don't. Using other Armies FAQs is the same as using another armies codex.

I hope you don't mind me using ork Boyz in my Space Wolf Army next should we ever play, since that is what you seem to think is allowed to be done.

GWAR, I think you came here with a devil's advocate argument, but stuck around to troll the thread. And using a ruling applied to a common ruleset to rule on a similar situation is the definition of a precedent. So the autarch ruling is a good indication of how GW will rule on this similarly obscure unit, and I think you know this. Would you bet money that GW won't rule the same way? I would, based on the precedent they set with the autarch

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

No, we don't. Using other Armies FAQs is the same as using another armies codex.

I hope you don't mind me using ork Boyz in my Space Wolf Army next should we ever play, since that is what you seem to think is allowed to be done.

GWAR, I think you came here with a devil's advocate argument, but stuck around to troll the thread. And using a ruling applied to a common ruleset to rule on a similar situation is the definition of a precedent. So the autarch ruling is a good indication of how GW will rule on this similarly obscure unit, and I think you know this. Would you bet money that GW won't rule the same way? I would, based on the precedent they set with the autarch

I we are going to talk precedent with GW and betting, then you may as well throw the deck of cards out the oijaboard. But if you are trying to find coherent reasons for a decision, then precedent is better than Gwaredent. The rule is so clearly written with no if-and-or-buts that there can be no argument about its intent without the writer (in this case GW) making some sort of statement otherwise. The core of this whole debate is players who, or sympathize with, depend upon their reserve rolls passing or their opponent's failing. If it were not such a big deal (say a one in a multi-million situation) I do not think anyone would really care (except on the internet).

Boil it down to the facts and RAW, yes, Atropaths and Officer of the Fleet stack.

RaW they also do not stack.
Therein lies the argument.

In your RAW they do not stack. In math +1 and +1 = +2. It is not even decisive by RAW. RAW can be read to either be +1 fulfills the requirement OR +1 and +1 always = +2.

Toreador wrote:RAW can be read to either be +1 fulfills the requirement OR +1 and +1 always = +2.

Which has been my Point from Post #1

I wish people would stop acting like Gwar has a point.
Gwar's agrument relies on incorrect interpretation of the English language.
THE is definitive. Referring to, in this case, the astropath in possession of the rule. With the conclusion that you add one for each astropath.


Now let's take Gwar!'s interpretation of the word 'THE' and apply it to another rule. To grab the nearest codex to me, I found the 'high elf repeater bolt thrower' will screw up just fine if we all use the flawed logic that Gwar is insisting is correct.

"If using the volley option, then the repeater bolt thrower shoots six bolts in the shooting phase (followed by some blah blah Strenght Armor Piercing)
If we use Gwar!'s logic, then if one Repeater Bolt Thrower fires its volley, then we have sufficiently satisfied the rules for all repeater bolt throwers and they do not get to fire their 6 shots. It is obviously not +6 for each bolt thrower: it is quite definitely 6 total.
... or not.

.

@ Gwar and Toreador : Does it says "only +1 for all Atropaths" or something similar? Does it say anything even suggesting such? No, it says for the Astropath "Whilst the Atropath is alive..." please note the singular "the," as opposed to "Astropaths" which would imply that multiple Astropaths still only add 1, "... you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls." Nope, nothing in there about "only add 1 regardless for the number of Astropaths an army takes," no implication of such in fact. It is possible that one could assume that is the minimum, since it does not say something like "add up to 1" or some wording where it might imply a maximum, no, just "add 1."

Following your logic, if I have a CCW that adds an additional attack, worded "add 1 to..." and pair it with a pistol, which also adds 1, then I would only get +1 attack overall, and if I charge, it would still be +1 because that +1 has been satisfied by either the pairing of Pistol and CCW or the Charge.

But no! The Rulebook expressly clarifies such wordings on page 37 of the Rulebook, final Paragraph of the first column, Example 2. There it demonstrates that +1 attributes can in fact stack with the wording you are implying does not allow for stacking.

I can't believe no has responded yet.

G

Until an Imperial Guard FAQ comes out stating they stack, then they do not. You can only look to the Eldar FAQ historically in terms of what GW may do with the Imperial Guard FAQ in the future, however per current RAW you cannot play them using the Eldar FAQ since it isn't your codex's FAQ.

you just had to kick the beehive, didn't you GBF?

"Until an Imperial Guard FAQ comes out stating they stack, then they do not. "
would be your opinion. mine differs. so why would i play it the way you think it should played?

alarmingrick wrote:you just had to kick the beehive, didn't you GBF?

"Until an Imperial Guard FAQ comes out stating they stack, then they do not. "
would be your opinion. mine differs. so why would i play it the way you think it should played?

Because the way he thinks it is played is the correct one. Just as yours is.

If we throw out English and Math. Add that qualifier, and I'm 100% with that statement.

I'm not forced to agree with Sourclams, I just don't see any flaws in your presentation of the topic, so therefore I'm convinced that they probably do stack... unless we get to throw out English and Math :p
But regardless, I'll let any IG player stack them if he buys multiple Astropaths. I think this debate though a little chilly at times has helped my understanding of the pro's and cons of each position.

sourclams wrote:If we throw out English and Math. Add that qualifier, and I'm 100% with that statement.

Thanks everyone :-)

I am more than glad to let them stack against my daemon army. In all likelyhood the majority of my army will come in late and you'll have less turns to shoot while I only need one turn to assault via the multi charge and drop beside objectives and run on top of them.

As far as I my honest opinion I think by RAI the designer did not intend for this to stack as it can lead to boring games against certain armies. I respect that this discussion is RAW based though but as I have said elsewhere I think it's time that we stop trying to resolve all rules by RAW. The INAT FAQ is an excellent example where many rules were clarified rather than dissected using RAW. I'm cool with that too but I don't want to have to use a different set of independently produced FAQs everytime I play in a large event.

G

@ Green Blow Fly : At risk of later eating crow, the fact that there is a distinct lack of specifics against stacking, I can not see how you could justify that RAI they do not stack. As for your Daemons plan, the odds are better that one or two units will arrive at a time, giving other armies plenty of time to pick the army apart. Your majority may arrive last turn or two, but you will need your troops to have survived to claim objectives, and enough of others to contest all of them (because your opponent should have claimed them all by then).

I have already seen it happen twice, and Astropaths are a greater threat to a Daemon army than force weapons and others that deny invulnerable saves. Just by controlling the rate units appear.

The INAT FAQ is an excellent example where many rules were clarified rather than dissected using RAW.

It's also an excellent example where many rules were completely made up according to the whims and personal inclinations of the authors, which is why none of us around here give it any credit beyond recognizing it as the compilation of house rules that it is.

Danny Internets wrote:

The INAT FAQ is an excellent example where many rules were clarified rather than dissected using RAW.

It's also an excellent example where many rules were completely made up according to the whims and personal inclinations of the authors, which is why none of us around here give it any credit beyond recognizing it as the compilation of house rules that it is.

Danny Internets is Right (Go Ahead and Sig it, I know you want to).

The INATFAQ is a decent document, however it disguises far too many blatant rules changes (where the RaW is not ambiguous at all, just "odd") as clarifications.

I have played my daemons against double stacking astropaths. If the preferred wave comes in first the IG have one turn to shoot. Typically they focus fire on the Blood Crushers which draws the heat off other units coming in the first turn. I always choose to go second if I win the roll. So the IG can find themselves in a bit of a predicament seriously. If they stand their ground the remainder of the preferred wave will be able to multi charge their next turn and the pendulum starts to swing back. The tanks that are assaulted tend to go down fast and the disembarking guardsmen that can make it out from the wreckage are exposed. My scoring units come in late and the guard can't generate as many shots.

A simplified re-post on the math behind 1 Officer of the Fleet vs 2 Officer of the Fleet against a Daemon army.

0 Officer of the Fleet
Turn 1: 18/36 army enters play.
Turn 2: 9/36 army enters play (18 remainng * 1/2 chance of arriving)
Turn 3: 6/36 army enters play (9 remaining * 2/3 chance of arriving)
Turn 4: 2-3/36 army enters play (3 remaining * 5/6 chance of arriving)
Turn 5: 0-1/36 army enters play (0-1 remaining)

1 Officer of the Fleet
Turn 1: 18/36 army enters play.
Turn 2: 6/36 army enters play (18 remaining * 1/3 chance of arriving)
Turn 3: 6/36 army enters play (12 remaining * 1/2 chance of arriving)
Turn 4: 4/36 army enters play (6 remaining * 2/3 chance of arriving)
Turn 5: 2/36 army enters play (2 remaining)

2 Officer of the Fleet
Turn 1: 18/36 army enters play.
Turn 2: 3/36 army enters play (18 remaining * 1/6 chance of arriving)
Turn 3: 5/36 army enters play (15 remaining * 1/3 chance of arriving)
Turn 4: 5/36 army enters play (10 remaining * 1/2 chance of arriving)
Turn 5: 5/36 army enters play (5 remaining)

Draw your own conclusions.

The rules are usually pretty good at phrasing things a different way if they are not meant to stack. (ala waagh banners)

The wording here is similar to a Warboss allowing bikers as troops.

Some people discussing this rule play IG and simply want the advantage of stacking so they carefully craft an argument that sounds valid, while in actuality they could care less if it is correct or not.

G

Coming from the Daemons player that doesn't want Nemesis Force Weapons to kill Eternal Warriors...?

I think the arguments based on English and Math hold more sway than baseless accusations of poor gamesmanship.

I only play against IG, actually do understand English and maths, and they definitely stack.

Enough has been said to prove they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Enough has been said to prove they do.

Enough has also been said to prove that they don't, but you choose to ignore that.

For a reason. Your argument just doesn't hold water. I've said it before, if you ignore English, Math, and half of the Telepathic Relay rule, then Astropaths can be seen as not stacking.

As much as I would like Astropaths to stack I don't see it working that way. If it was cumulative I believe they would have put that in the rules (barring an extreme oversight).

I mean let's just step back and look at this? If your Astropaths stack than you are capable of keeping out large chunks of you opponents army (if they are in reserves). For 120 points does that sound reasonable to be nearly guranteeing that you get your reserves turn two and thus keeping your opponents forces out of the game for several turns (if you took two masters of the fleet)?

Can we just call the Rule Boyz (if they still exist) and get a final say?

"Can we just call the Rule Boyz (if they still exist) and get a final say? "

sure, call them fifteen times and you get fifteen different answers. i think we'd
be better off letting a monkey with a dart decide.

alarmingrick wrote:"Can we just call the Rule Boyz (if they still exist) and get a final say? "

sure, call them fifteen times and you get fifteen different answers. i think we'd
be better off letting a monkey with a dart decide.

You mean you'd get 16 answers

I'm going to annoy Gwar here but between the precedent set with the Autarch and with the Improved Comms rule (used in the old guard codex and in IA), both of which are related to reserves (one is an option +1 and one is an optional re-roll) and both of which stack then they ought to stack.

The rule as it stands though is thoroughly ambiguous. Personally, I think that the astropath and officer of the fleet are both potential liabilities. Their effects (especially when doubled) have the potential to hurt you really badly. (against ninja tau, for example, giving him -2 on all reserve rolls is a huge boost for him)

Both Improved Comms and Autarchs are much better as they are selective.

Well, good point Scott-s6, but they also got rid of Improved Comms in the new Codex (IA also isn't used in most games). I'm not familiar with the Autarch's rule, but he also has a Strategy rating (which is useless now I believe).

I just can't buy the idea that you could handicap your opponent while helping yourself so easily. If I'm wrong though when the FAQ comes out I will glady admit it.

When the stubborn IG players finally realize stacking can lead them to getting their butts collectively kicked all of a sudden they will be saying it doesn't stack... don't you just know it!

Are you helping yourself though?

Depending on exactly what forces both players have and what the mission is the officer of the fleet could be a liability. For example, when your opponent see's that you have 2xOofF, he can place his scoring units in reserve while deploying all of his killy units - now his scorers are going to be reliably held until very late in the game.

You can mitigate the astropath somewhat by not placing anything in reserve but if you did want to hold something back till late in the game it's unlikely to happen with +2 on your reserve rolls.

Green Blow Fly wrote:When the stubborn IG players finally realize stacking can lead them to getting their butts collectively kicked all of a sudden they will be saying it doesn't stack... don't you just know it!

Speaking of stubborn players, how does the daemon player feel about Nemesis Force Weapons now?

Exactly Scott-S6... it's a no brainer for a daemon player really.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Exactly Scott-S6... it's a no brainer for a daemon player really.

G

And for Drop Pod Players.

Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

I don't play IG, and I know they stack.

Even reading the reasons given for not stacking, I am confused that people believe those reasons. It seems pretty darn obvious that they do stack.

edited*
Reopening old argument in thread (finally was able to read through back pages)

Brother Ramses wrote:Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

You don't seem very familiar with how FAQs work. 85% of what's in them is stuff that is already clearly written in the rules and was never a point of contention in the first place. Then you have about 10% of outright rules changes and 5% of genuine clarifications.

Danny Internets wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

You don't seem very familiar with how FAQs work. 85% of what's in them is stuff that is already clearly written in the rules and was never a point of contention in the first place. Then you have about 10% of outright rules changes and 5% of genuine clarifications.

Sadly 90% of the rules changes (like this one) are disguised as clarifications, just like that OTHER faq.

Danny Internets wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

You don't seem very familiar with how FAQs work. 85% of what's in them is stuff that is already clearly written in the rules and was never a point of contention in the first place. Then you have about 10% of outright rules changes and 5% of genuine clarifications.

100% of the statistics on the internet are made up, amirite?

If it was clearly written, why is this thread here?

I am wondering how many pages this will go before the plug is pulled.

G

Brother Ramses wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

You don't seem very familiar with how FAQs work. 85% of what's in them is stuff that is already clearly written in the rules and was never a point of contention in the first place. Then you have about 10% of outright rules changes and 5% of genuine clarifications.

100% of the statistics on the internet are made up, amirite?

If it was clearly written, why is this thread here?

I don't recall saying it is clearly written (because I didn't). My point was that the existence of an entry in a GW FAQ does not have any bearing on whether or not the rule was clear to begin with.

Danny Internets wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

You don't seem very familiar with how FAQs work. 85% of what's in them is stuff that is already clearly written in the rules and was never a point of contention in the first place. Then you have about 10% of outright rules changes and 5% of genuine clarifications.

100% of the statistics on the internet are made up, amirite?

If it was clearly written, why is this thread here?

I don't recall saying it is clearly written (because I didn't). My point was that the existence of an entry in a GW FAQ does not have any bearing on whether or not the rule was clear to begin with.

85% of what's in them is stuff that is already clearly written in the rules and was never a point of contention in the first place.

So then is this Astropath rule part of the 85%? Is that what you are contending?

The very purpose of a FAQ is to clear up any misunderstandings of the rule in question. The statistics you want to throw out are of course your own biased opinion of what a GW FAQ consists. Calling into the question the validity or content of the rules FAQ of the company that produces the game you play seems to be pretty pompous. Those FAQ produced by GW have changed the ways how the game is played several times over as they have been released.

Calling into the question the validity or content of the rules FAQ of the company that produces the game you play seems to be pretty pompous.

Can't help but laugh at that.

Are you new here? Have you even read a GW FAQ?

Brother Ramses wrote:Since so many people brought up the Autarch's special rule wording being so similiar to the Astropath's and the Eldar FAQ, lets take GW's action NOT the result as precedence:

GW had to FAQ the Eldar codex to allow the Autarch's special rule to stack.

So unless GW FAQs a perfectly clear rule (based on Math and Logic), then we don't have to follow it? I could, for example, disallow any opponent from from starting Lootas in a non-dedicated Battlewagon because there's no FAQ that states that units may deploy in a non-dedicated transport? I can claim Vulkan doesn't twin-link allied Sisters of Battle flamers/heavy flamers because I don't think the rule is clear enough?

Until GW released the FAQ allowing the Autarch's special rule to stack, it was not allowed to stack.

According to whom? This is one of those claims that looks real good, but I'd sure like to know what ironclad ruling you're citing that disallowed it.

So if we take GW's action as precedence, until GW releases a Imperial Guard FAQ that allows them to stack, the Astropath's special rule for reserve rolls does not stack.

What precedence? The conclusion you're drawing isn't even valid, much less precedential. What your proposing is akin to picking up a random stray dog, letting it loose in a shopping mall, watching security or Health Services haul it back out into the street, and then barring a blind person and their Guide Dog based on "precedence".

People are making this a whole lot more difficult than it really is. Like I said I will more than gladly allow my opponents to stack this rule but that said I don't think that was the intention based upon the explanations given here in this thread. I am just being completely honest about it.

G

Why is it when someone doesn't have anything to actually counter an argument they start bringing in the exclusive versus inclusive scenario?

"It doesn't say I can't do it, so I can!!"

Look at the history of GW, all the rules have been exclusive meaning if you can do it they will tell you, otherwise you can't do it. Same argument people used for 12" bike assaults:

"Well it doesn't say we can't charge 12", so we must be able too!!'

Prior to the Eldar FAQ could anyone say without a doubt that the Autarch reserve roll stacked? Did they have any ironclad proof from GW that the reserve roll stacked? Did they after the FAQ was released? If it was crystal clear, everyone agreed that it stacked, everyone played that it stacked, THEN WHY HAVE THE NEED TO FAQ THE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!

And now we have folks that say that Astropath special rules stack. It is obviously not a clear cut case that they do since this thread was created and has a few pages under its belt. Until GW FAQs it, either way, play as GW has written their rules always with that if they wanted you to do it, they would have written it in the rules telling you to do it. Argue semantics as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that two people are going to have a different opinion of it and until a FAQ appears, they will continue to have a different opinion on it.

Brother Ramses wrote:Why is it when someone doesn't have anything to actually counter an argument they start bringing in the exclusive versus inclusive scenario?

"It doesn't say I can't do it, so I can!!"

Except the rule in question specifically says that the model provides the bonus. If the model is alive, it provides the bonus. This isn't a 12" bike assault, it's paying points for a model to get a special effect.

Prior to the Eldar FAQ could anyone say without a doubt that the Autarch reserve roll stacked? Did they have any ironclad proof from GW that the reserve roll stacked? Did they after the FAQ was released? If it was crystal clear, everyone agreed that it stacked, everyone played that it stacked, THEN WHY HAVE THE NEED TO FAQ THE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!

And when 5th ed was released, people were starting threads about whether or not Nobs that counted as troops due to a Warboss could hold objectives. Should they FAQ that, too? Do you need to be spoon fed every rule query? Does a Stop sign have to be turned into a Go sign before you're willing to cross the intersection?

Argue semantics as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that two people are going to have a different opinion of it and until a FAQ appears, they will continue to have a different opinion on it.

Going by the poll in a similar thread, three people out of every four thought the rule was clear that they stacked. You're welcome to the vocal minority, but just because you see ambiguity doesn't mean that everybody else does.

sourclams wrote:
Going by the poll in a similar thread, three people out of every four thought the rule was clear that they stacked. You're welcome to the vocal minority, but just because you see ambiguity doesn't mean that everybody else does.

And of course, since polls on the Internet, or on forums where people are able to create as many accounts as they have e-mail addresses, are impossible to manipulate, the results you quote must be completely reliable.

Saying that the majority of people think something has absolutely nothing to do with it's validity.

If something is counter-intuitive then it would be perfectly natural for lots of people to get it wrong.

Danny Internets: GW has a long history of FAQing things which were perfectly clear while dodging the real issues in a codex or rulebook.

@ Solkan & Scott : And if the situation were flipped I'm sure neither of you would be throwing your weight behind it. Arguing ignorance or cheating as the cause of a poll being wrong without any proof that either are not negating each other (equal ratios) if just as foolish as the conflict over this rule. The rule is quite clear and specific about what model gets the bonus and its restrictions for stackind, of which there are none. A similiar argument would be "Can I take multiple Infantry Platoons? It doesn't say I can, but it doesn't say I can either..." because there is no section saying "you may take multiple Platoons." Why? Because it's just too basic an idea to bother spelling out.

I agree that the results of a poll don't carry much weight.

G

Nope, being right is not a popularity contest.

The fact of the matter is, the wording of the rule has nothing to offer either way. It is written in a manner to imply that it stacks but it does not state that it does. If the rule said "While the astropath is in play then your reserves enter play on a 3+ on turn two, a 2+ on turn three, automatically in turn four or five." would you argue that it stacks and two astropaths improve the bonus? Yet, saying that the astropath adds one to the roll has the exact same meaning.

I've already said, I'd allow it stack until clarified based on two other similar (but not identical) examples, both of which were FAQ'd to be stacking. (so I'm agreeing with the poll. Shock!!1!1!! Thus making your comment on my opinion of the poll entirely pointless)

The poll is still completely irrelevant. What the mass of people think is of no value or purpose in determining anything.

Danny Internets: GW has a long history of FAQing things which were perfectly clear while dodging the real issues in a codex or rulebook.

Agreed completely, which is why I found that other guy's high opinion of GW's ability to writes FAQs beyond comprehension. They have become increasingly terrible lately, with the Space Marine FAQ being a pinnacle of ineptitude.

I know! I can't be the only one that read that FAQ and thought "but those points were all perfectly clear - what about the problems?"

You know, the more I think about the astropath and the officer of the fleet, the more I dislike them.

In a game with closed lists they have the potential to be enormously cheesy. In a game with open lists a good opponent could derive advantage from them, depending on army list he could get a substantial advantage.

New question - do they count as "in play" while in reserves? or only when on the table?

After reading the thread and seeing how tournments are ruling on this, I am definatly convinced that they do indeed stack. There are both pros and cons to this but if someone is willing to pay the points then they should get the added benifits/disadvantages.

I think that definatly the RAW and RAI support the above.

Scott-S6 wrote:Nope, being right is not a popularity contest.

The fact of the matter is, the wording of the rule has nothing to offer either way. It is written in a manner to imply that it stacks but it does not state that it does. If the rule said "While the astropath is in play then your reserves enter play on a 3+ on turn two, a 2+ on turn three, automatically in turn four or five." would you argue that it stacks and two astropaths improve the bonus? Yet, saying that the astropath adds one to the roll has the exact same meaning.

I've already said, I'd allow it stack until clarified based on two other similar (but not identical) examples, both of which were FAQ'd to be stacking. (so I'm agreeing with the poll. Shock!!1!1!! Thus making your comment on my opinion of the poll entirely pointless)

The poll is still completely irrelevant. What the mass of people think is of no value or purpose in determining anything.

-Directs Scott to the garage for broken logics-

There is nothing in the quoted post that makes any sort of logic, to be sure. In a perfect world, some of what was written makes sense, but the world is not perfect, in fact, it is far from perfect and I am very glad that it is! If it weren't you would either be completely numb, or in horrible agony! Regardless, there just isn't anything in there worth trying to oppose, as it is obvious that there is a lack of logical thought of the author. There just isn't anything real here! I can't stress that enough! Please! Pick up a book and READ! Go back to school and take a class in something other than trivia! A basic math class would even help! I am not trying to be insultive in the least, I am asking you to please seek help! The power of Spock compels you! The power of Spock compels you!

Skinnittar - Are you commenting on question about the rule (which I cannot help notice has not been answered) or on my opinion of the poll?

Well, firstly, the fact that you think the wording of the rule has nothing to offer either way and that GW does not have clear rules regarding stacking, just look to the Close Combat section about adding up extra attacks. If it weren't for an example they make then you would have to follow the same logic for that and only get +1 attack ever (instead of +1 attack for charge, +1 attack for dual close combat weapons, and any other modifiers you may imagine). Which I have stated already. Plus the FAQed example of the Eldar previously stated, the plethora of examples in so many codices with stacking special rules are worded the same, many come with additional examples, but many do not (I believe the Culexus Assassin has one for his special pistol).

Also, the opinion of the masses is ALL that matters, and the belief that polls are completely irrelevant on a fair and equal opportunity field such as this, and when the ratio is so much in one sides favor, is just ridiculous. This isn't a national election poll or anything where votes and opinions are isolated because one side's demographic is not prone to using internet polls or something like that, it's Dakka Dakka!

Being right is nothing BUT a popularity contest. Get enough people to agee with you, and things like the Holocaust didn't happen. Get enough people to agree with you, and the Holocaust will happen again. Get enough people to refuse to use basic logic/math skills, and you will get elected President. It may not have been fair, it may not have been right, it may have been completely illogical! But if an opinion is more popular, it is the one that will be followed. Like here, despite that fact that the rule is very clear in direction, there is an opinion against it, which is completely unsupported by history, by content, by facts, etc... but it is still being discussed like it has bearing. Why? Because there are people supporting it, whether they are right or wrong.

Incorrect - modifiers from different sources is not the same as having two duplicate sources.

Have you got any examples of stacking modifiers (that's modifiers from duplicate sources, not multiple different modifiers) that are generally held to be stacking without explicit wording or FAQs?


As for the majority - if the majority of people want to be wrong then that's their problem and has no bearing on what is correct. The majority of people believe that 0.999... is not equal to 1 (this is so common a misconception that many math text books address it specifically) yet they are still incorrect.

If you want to house rule the astropath to stack that's up to you. But acknowledge that you are making a personal judgement on a rule which is ambiguous. I've got no problem with it either way.

Scott-S6 wrote:Incorrect - modifiers from different sources is not the same as having two duplicate sources.

Have you got any examples of stacking modifiers (that's modifiers from duplicate sources, not multiple different modifiers) that are generally held to be stacking without explicit wording or FAQs?

Wounds taken from shooting or assault, multiple Psychic Battle Squad leadership nukes, models rolling multiple '1's while firing a Gets Hot! weapon.

People keep comparing it to things like Furious Charge (an unlocked ability providing a flat bonus). This is Wrong. You need to compare it to cumulative affect effects like those I listed above.

If you want to house rule the astropath to stack that's up to you. But acknowledge that you are making a personal judgement on a rule which is ambiguous. I've got no problem with it either way.

It's ambiguous if you ignore English and Math and half of the Telepathic Relay rule. Show me they don't stack based on the rules as written.

sourclams wrote:Wounds taken from shooting or assault,

This isn't a modifier, how is it relevant?

multiple Psychic Battle Squad leadership nukes,

This is good point - I'll need to re-read this. (no IG codex in front of me today)

models rolling multiple '1's while firing a Gets Hot! weapon.

Again, not a modifier.

Show me they don't stack based on the rules as written.

Classic strawman. This is a permissive ruleset, if the rules don't say you can then you can't.
All of the examples of stacking modifiers I could find in the rulebook (and there are very few) are expressly written as such - e.g. from the ramming rules "Speed: for each full 3" travelled [blah,blah] +1".

If the astropath rule said "for each astropath in play" then it would be clear. Likewise, if it said "while there is an astropath in play" then it would be clear they don't.

It's ambiguous if you ignore English and Math and half of the Telepathic Relay rule. Show me they don't stack based on the rules as written.

Try using Logic instead. Maybe that's where you're going wrong? Gwar!'s post was quite clear as to why they do not stack by strickest reading the rule. However, the language they've used could suggest either.

As previously mentioned, the use of "while the astropath is in play" suggests +1 for each but does not actually provide for it as it only requires a single +1 to satisfy the requirement of both astropaths. However, GW are generally very explicit on stacking prefering "for each [whatever]". The sentence structure is much more similar to what they generally use for non-stacking "while there is a [whatever] in play"

The rules do say they stack, as if they don't stack you have not followed the rules for each astropath.

Point to Astropath A - while he's alive I add +1.

Point to Astropath B - while he's alive I MUST add a further +1, otherwise I have not followed the rule for that astropath.

EACH Astropath has the rule, therefore you apply each simulataneously to find you must add +2.

Skinnattittar wrote:y imagine). Which I have stated already. Plus the FAQed example of the Eldar previously stated, the plethora of examples in so many codices with stacking special rules are worded the same, many come with additional examples, but many do not (I believe the Culexus Assassin has one for his special pistol).

I would like to see some of these many examples quoted. All of the stacking modifiers that I could find (and there are incredibly few in the 40K ruleset - there are very few modifiers in the first place and nearly all of them are written with no possibility whatsoever of stacking) are explicitly one way or the other.

The culexus's gun is +1 for each psyker. Not even close to the same wording.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules do say they stack, as if they don't stack you have not followed the rules for each astropath.

Point to Astropath A - while he's alive I add +1.

Point to Astropath B - while he's alive I MUST add a further +1, otherwise I have not followed the rule for that astropath.

EACH Astropath has the rule, therefore you apply each simulataneously to find you must add +2.

Incorrect.

Add 1 to reserves.
Is Astropath A satisfied - yes.
Is Astropath B satisfied - yes.

If the wording was the more common for GW, "for each astropath in play" then you would have to stack.

I'm going to re-post what Gwar! wrote because he was spot-on:

But fine, I'll explain it to you:
Imperial Guard Player begins his turn, and has 2 Astropaths. He then rolls his reserve dice, for a result of 3.

Both Astropaths are checking for their special rule:
Astropath One: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: False)
Astropath Two: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: False)

You then add one to the dice for a result of 4:
Astropath One: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: True)
Astropath Two: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: True)
Therefore, adding just one satisfies both Astropaths Special Rule.

Scott-S6 wrote:

sourclams wrote:Wounds taken from shooting or assault,

This isn't a modifier, how is it relevant?

multiple Psychic Battle Squad leadership nukes,

This is good point - I'll need to re-read this. (no IG codex in front of me today)

models rolling multiple '1's while firing a Gets Hot! weapon.

Again, not a modifier.

And this is where you go Wrong. Astropaths don't provide a modifier in the sense that we're used to dealing with them (as unlocked special abilities), they create an effect, and effects are cumulative (i.e. Wounds).

If the astropath rule said "for each astropath in play" then it would be clear. Likewise, if it said "while there is an astropath in play" then it would be clear they don't.

Telepathic relay specifically says that; "While the Astropath is alive". This is the part that requires ignoring English in order to deny that they stack.

Try using Logic instead. Maybe that's where you're going wrong? Gwar!'s post was quite clear as to why they do not stack by strickest reading the rule. However, the language they've used could suggest either.

Logic is based on proper construction of English and Math; logic also has to be ignored if you're trying to deny that they stack, because Gwar's argument (and yours) requires a re-writing of the Telepathic Relay rule to exclude the definite article "the". If you rewrite Telepathic Relay to exclude the definite article, then suddenly your logic becomes fallacious.

"As previously mentioned, the use of "while the astropath is in play" suggests +1 for each"

You are misquoting the rule. I suggest re-reading the rule until you understand the exact wording before attempting to debate the point. I would also point out that your continued usage of the definite article when referring to the Astropath indicates that even by your definition, it stacks.

The definitive article is not being ignored by having the modifier not stacking. See Gwar!'s post. This is fairly basic logic. The requirement is satisfied by a single +1 as at no point is "each astropath" mentioned.

And this is where you go Wrong. Astropaths don't provide a modifier in the sense that we're used to dealing with them (as unlocked special abilities), they create an effect, and effects are cumulative (i.e. Wounds).

That is a matter of opinion, unless you want to back that up with something.

Sligoth has already covered that:

1) As a steady state effect. If an astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a general effect created by having astropaths in the field, having more than one astropath deployed doesnt increase the effect that they produce, since they are simply adjusting

2) As a specific bonus to the die roll. If the astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a specific bonus that the model is supplying to the die roll, so since the rules allow multiple adjustments to die rolls then each model will add a +1.

.

So the rule can work both ways.

Scott-S6 wrote:

1) As a steady state effect. If an astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a general effect created by having astropaths in the field, having more than one astropath deployed doesnt increase the effect that they produce, since they are simply adjusting

2) As a specific bonus to the die roll. If the astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a specific bonus that the model is supplying to the die roll, so since the rules allow multiple adjustments to die rolls then each model will add a +1.

.

So the rule can work both ways.

This pretty much what I have said from the beginning. Personally I do not feel they do stack, hence my arguments for this interpretation, but the RaW can easily be taken to mean either "way".

And I've said I feel that they do based on the examples of the Autarch and Improved Comms.

Certain people just don't want to let it go with being proved right. It was fun while we were covering new ground though.

Scott-S6 wrote:And I've said I feel that they do based on the examples of the Autarch and Improved Comms.

Certain people just don't want to let it go with being proved right. It was fun while we were covering new ground though.

The problem with this post is that you, Gwar! and GBF are still mistakenly thinking you are making a concrete argument.

Sourclaims has explained it better, but the problem with your argument is that you ignore the basic english used in the rules as they are written. The rules are written in the singular difinative, meaning, the rules are written to mean that one astropath provides a singular bonus.

Mahu wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:And I've said I feel that they do based on the examples of the Autarch and Improved Comms.

Certain people just don't want to let it go with being proved right. It was fun while we were covering new ground though.

The problem with this post is that you, Gwar! and GBF are still mistakenly thinking you are making a concrete argument.

Sourclaims has explained it better, but the problem with your argument is that you ignore the basic english used in the rules as they are written. The rules are written in the singular difinative, meaning, the rules are written to mean that one astropath provides a singular bonus.

And the problem with your argument is that until GW let the Autarch Stack, it was exactly the same as the IG one, where were not sure if it Stacked or not. Because the Autarch rule is NOT identically worded, we cannot take its ruling to apply to the IG one (not that we could anyway, because its not the Eldar Codex), but it is similar, we have to assume that the same situation (where we do not know if it stacks or not) is the case until GW change it one way or the other.

Mahu wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:And I've said I feel that they do based on the examples of the Autarch and Improved Comms.

Certain people just don't want to let it go with being proved right. It was fun while we were covering new ground though.

The problem with this post is that you, Gwar! and GBF are still mistakenly thinking you are making a concrete argument.

Sourclaims has explained it better, but the problem with your argument is that you ignore the basic english used in the rules as they are written. The rules are written in the singular difinative, meaning, the rules are written to mean that one astropath provides a singular bonus.

Or, a singular astropath creates a condition where a +1 exists. In which case, any number of astropaths will not change that +1 into a +2.

The rule can be successfully applied under either interpretation. The vase majority of modifiers in the 40K rules are non-stacking. But there are similar rules to this one which do stack. (after FAQing)

Very poor writing - it would take such a small amendment to the rule to make it clear and definitive either way.

Okay so now my DC lead by Corbulo get double Furiois Charge now. Cool!

G

Scott-S6 wrote:Or, a singular astropath creates a condition where a +1 exists. In which case, any number of astropaths will not change that +1 into a +2.

That's an invalid argument. It was invalid when Gwar! was saying it, and it's still invalid under your usage. You have to ignore English in order to create your "singular astropath condition".

We can call it poor writing, or lack of specificity, or whatever, but if we simply read the literal rule as it exists in its entirety, there is nothing that prevents this ability from adding one for every single astropath model. You have to rewrite the rules in order to create the scenario you describe, which isn't arguing RAW. There is no 'both ways', but there is enough ambiguity to allow the mis-application of a 'both ways' argument.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay so now my DC lead by Corbulo get double Furiois Charge now. Cool!

G

Please submit your actual argument that both situations are the same?

And even if they where, arguing the ramifications of one ruling to another doesn't make a good argument. Unless we want to go back to precedence arguments.

Sounds like nothing new is being covered here. But by RAW English is to be obeyed... thall shalt speak English, thall shalt use grammar, and thall shalt use thy grammar appropriately. Thall shalt not twist English unto anti-grammatical non-sense. I also see a lot of opinions on here. Why not just go find that poll I made and put some more votes on this topic on their.

I see 3 very vocal voices opposed to stacking, and everyone else having already said their peace and just re-posting when some invalid argument crops up.

Mahu wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay so now my DC lead by Corbulo get double Furiois Charge now. Cool!

G

Please submit your actual argument that both situations are the same?

And even if they where, arguing the ramifications of one ruling to another doesn't make a good argument. Unless we want to go back to precedence arguments.

I think he's under the impression that if he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again people will forget that it's both unsupported and irrelevant.

Minus minus one is not valid for the Monolith so we cannot always uses math to further clarify a lurky rule to surfing a decision barsed on logical discourse. Dig it.

G

Ok the rats have jumped, so I am going to too:

Last Post is not yours :p

Well I know this horse is dead BUT...

The Tyranid Codex (no, don't groan please) is a clear example of a situation where it was intended for a modifying effect to stack & they (GW) clearly stated that it did indeed stack.

The other examples quoted as 'you have to ignore English to say...' are off in that the interpretation of the statement in English has more than one possible meaning. You could say that 'the' means 'this one astropath' and then deduce (assume) that ALL other astropaths would get the same modifier THUS stacking them. You could also say that 'the' means 'this one astropath' and deduce (assume) that as long as that one condition were met the one modifier would be true.

There's no 'ignoring English' to either interpretation. What's that famous quote about Easter eggs in rulesbooks?

WH40k rules are written to not specifically allow something which is not clearly defined as being allowed. If they FAQ something they don't ever say 'oh and if anything else we have written sounds similar, just apply it there too'... they FAQ (or not) every individual instance they feel is necessary. It is often stated by the game designers that if there is a dispute you can flip a coin but you should also err on the side of NOT gaining a specific advantage which is not clearly (to all observing the rules) stated. Play to enjoy the game and if you have to, make your own rules that all the players can agree on.

So whether it 'makes sense to your interpretation' or 'there was another rule that was similar and FAQ'd to mean 'X' '... the important part is that until (if) they do FAQ this particular rule, you & your opponent both must decide on how it works when the situation comes up, if there is a disagreement in interpretation. Just because one player said 'sure, let them stack' in a game does not mean that another player has to abide by that interpretation. Give & take or pick up your toys and go home. Without an official GW FAQ on this (and many other rules with more than one reasonable interpretation) you may have to compromise on this point depending on who you play and what the RAW means to them.

Not budging, EVER, from your interpretation in a case like this (for either side of the argument) is unreasonable and unsportsmanlike.
I don't actually think any of you are unreasonable or unsportsmanlike, I think you all just want to make a point.

Gwars pictures have taken a good turn, even if the guys face is a little off, who looks at his face?

GBF - you use English AND Maths to deduce that they must stack. Your "FC" example however never does that, as they both provide access to an ability.

They stack - the Eldar FAQ didnt make them stack, it simply says that yes, the wording means they stack. There is no need for a rule saying they can, the English language and Maths means they can.

In fact as a counter point the nid codex ALSO mentions when they dont stack, so it doesnt help either way....

Rockit wrote:
The other examples quoted as 'you have to ignore English to say...' are off in that the interpretation of the statement in English has more than one possible meaning. You could say that 'the' means 'this one astropath' and then deduce (assume) that ALL other astropaths would get the same modifier THUS stacking them. You could also say that 'the' means 'this one astropath' and deduce (assume) that as long as that one condition were met the one modifier would be true.

Where the rule says 'the astropath' can only ever mean this one astropath. It would have to say 'the astropaths' in order for it to have the ambiguity of meaning that you're describing. In short, your grammar is incorrect, and the inaccuracy of your argument stems from you ignoring English.

RAW both parties are right for different reasons, so, in this specific instance, RAI is the deciding factor.
Since there is no wording to betray the intention of the designers, Balance is the issue.
If you pay the points cost for both astropaths, they should stack.

This ends up costing you 160 points if you buy the CCS just for the astropaths, and you can take two maximum.
Add in Vox Casters, Heavy Weapons, Other Advisors, And Medi-Packs and you have yourself two very expensive units.