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.

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.