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.

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.