Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cant find any real reason why they shouldnt stack, but some people seem to thing they dont?

How will you be playing it?

How could you say they do not?

There was a whole thread about it about a week ago. Believe it or not, some people think that math doesn't stack. I blame 40k rules being so poorly written that they encourage illogical thought.

I can't find any language in the text of the rules to say it would do anything but stack.

The thought goes as follows:

Each dude gives you -1 to enemy rolls.

Even if you have 2 of them, As soon as a single -1 is reached, it will satisfy the -1 requirement for each.

Since it doesnt say Specifically that they accumulate, they dont.

IE:
-1
-1
enemy gets -1 to his rolls, both -1's requirements are filled.

I think its stupid myself.

-1 + -1 = -2!

Simple math people.

That argument holds no water at all.

It is a huge semantical stretch to argue that point vs. the very easy conclusion that you get a stacked modifier per officer.

There are two very big flaws with jp400's proposed argument:

1. That there's any sort of 'requirement' that needs to be 'filled' by the modifier. That's making language up right there.
2. "It doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't" is not an argument. It doesn't say I can't have MANZ w/TL-Railguns at BS5 in my army either, but that doesn't mean I can have them.

I can see why some would have the "only -1" position.

I used to play the MechWarrior clicks game and they were very explicit about non-stacking modifiers. But they used wording similar to: "Add +1 to the unit's printed damage value."

And they even clearly spelled out in the rules that *most* modifiers don't stack unless explicitly stated that they do.

Unfortunately, GW isn't nearly as explicit as many other games about whether modifiers stack or not...

Reecius wrote:That argument holds no water at all.

Actually, it does.

Until we get an official Errata we can argue about this till Ragnarok, so I would suggest killing this thread until then.

You know this is the same argument I got at the FLGS store this weekend when I was doing a test run of the new codex. I had an infantry platoon in 4+ cover and gave them the Go to Ground order....my opponent tried to argue that they would not get a 2+ save....he argued the same thing that they allready get a modifier from being in cover so the +2 did not apply. This is after the guy called me and asked me to make a list so we could practice before our usual Wed. night games.....

The ability for some people to forget basic math amazes me sometimes...

Actually, it does.

Until we get an official Errata we can argue about this till Ragnarok, so I would suggest killing this thread until then.

How is that? I am curious to see how someone would argue this as it seems preposterous to me. And we may die of old age before this is FAQ'd so sticking our heads in the sand is not the best idea.

The rule says:

"Whilst the astropath is alive, you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls."

or

"Whilst the officer of the fleet is alive, your opponent must subtract 1 from all of his reserve rolls."

How in the blazes does anyone think that is not stackable? If two are alive, you subtract two or add two as the case may be. The language is simple in this case. What part of it makes anyone think they do not stack? If it said: The presence of an astropath causes -1 or +1 blah blah blah, I could see the argument, but here the ability is attributed to the model, each model. If it said while A astropath or officer of the fleet is alive, that would imply they did not stack.

I plan on only using one set of them anyway.

Just food for thought as the following examples seem to be related.

Eldar FAQ allows 2 Autarchs to stack their bonuses to reserve rolls.

If one takes 2 Warbosses, it is commonly accepted that each one allows a Nob/Meganob unit to become a troop choice.

Personally, I'll allow the stacking unless GW FAQ's otherwise.

H.B.M.C. wrote:There are two very big flaws with jp400's proposed argument:

1. That there's any sort of 'requirement' that needs to be 'filled' by the modifier. That's making language up right there.
2. "It doesn't say it does, therefore it doesn't" is not an argument. It doesn't say I can't have MANZ w/TL-Railguns at BS5 in my army either, but that doesn't mean I can have them.

Actually its not my argument at all, someone else (Who shall remain nameless) who argued with me until the mods closed the thread swears by this flawed logic.

Reecius I agree with you 100% on this. I say it stacks.

Then we are forming a gang, and anyone who disagrees with us gets punched in the wiener!

Let me get my brass knuckles...

hahaha, hell yeah!

Warrriorrrs, come out and plaaayyy!

Cue: wacky themed gangs of miscreants engage in brutal combat over that age old argument: to stack, or not to stack!

The rule only says that while the officer is alive "Your opponent must subtract 1 from all his reserve rolls". It doesn't say that the new result after doing the subtraction becomes the reserve roll.

Therefore this rule just forces your opponent to perform basic maths, and does not alter the result of what he rolled for his reserves at all.

I agree with Reecius because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

I would tend to agree with Sarigar. The precedent set by the Eldar Autarch FAQ and their Master Strategist ability stacking leads me to believe that the Astropath and Master of the Fleet abilities stack as well.

Our gang is growing! Soon we will push the bloods and cryps out of the racketeer and prostitution rackets!

But I agree, Occams razor is a very good application to this debate.

It's at 85%, I suggest to the 15% to stop playing otherwise.

onlainari wrote:It's at 85%, I suggest to the 15% to stop playing otherwise.

Yes, because DakkaDakka are the ultimate authority behind rules disputes... Oh wait!
I'll play it however I want thank you.

The argument for and against are both equally valid, and require clarification pre game with your opponent. Until GW errata it and fixes it, the argument will just go about in circles.

Gwar! wrote:

onlainari wrote:It's at 85%, I suggest to the 15% to stop playing otherwise.

Yes, because DakkaDakka are the ultimate authority behind rules disputes... Oh wait!
I'll play it however I want thank you.

The argument for and against are both equally valid, and require clarification pre game with your opponent. Until GW errata it and fixes it, the argument will just go about in circles.

I'm pretty sure that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor makes one more valid than the other.

No, not really.

Occams razor is good for 2 situations where one is far more ridiculous than the other. In this case, each situation is just as valid as the other, because the Rules do NOT specifically state they stack. Just because another codex has a similar effect that does has no bearing (after all, if it did then Dark Angels Deathwing would be a lot tougher to kill).

By claiming they stack, you are assuming that they do stack, even though there is nothing to state that they do. Occams Razor therefore says that they do not stack, because it doesn't say they do, and in 40k something must tell you what you CAN do rather than what you CANNOT do.

Personally, I would have had it up for debate if GW hadn't set a precedence about stacking bonuses. Except for Gwar, everyone I've ever communicated with over the internet, in person or gamed with abides by the GW FAQ's. As a non IG player (but does play Eldar), I'll have no issues allowing stacking.

Math says they stack.

Sarigar wrote:Personally, I would have had it up for debate if GW hadn't set a precedence about stacking bonuses. Except for Gwar, everyone I've ever communicated with over the internet, in person or gamed with abides by the GW FAQ's. As a non IG player (but does play Eldar), I'll have no issues allowing stacking.

OK firstly, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I actually do follow the FAQ's where they are actually clarifying something, just not when they change rules entirely (that is what errata are for)

Secondly, how many times must it be said that Precedents and what other codex's say have no bearing on anything? GW themselves have stated as much. If we did go on precedents and used other codex's to clarify things then we would have 3++ Storm Shields for all Marines and would have to buy 6 or 7 Codex's in order to play one army.

sourclams wrote:Math says they stack.

Gee, way to read the whole thread.

The issue is not the math. Of course "Math" says they stack. But we are not dealing with math, we are dealing with English, and the issue arises from the ambiguity of whether or not they stack (2 OotF = -2) or if they add redundancy (2 MotF gives a blanket -1 but you have to kill 2 of them to remove it)

if others stack so does this one

Gwar! wrote:The issue is not the math. Of course "Math" says they stack. But we are not dealing with math, we are dealing with English, and the issue arises from the ambiguity of whether or not they stack (2 OotF = -2) or if they add redundancy (2 MotF gives a blanket -1 but you have to kill 2 of them to remove it)

Neither English nor Math agree with you.