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.

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.