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.

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.