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.

Officer of the Fleet

Special Rule: Intercept Reserves: Whilst the officer of the fleet is alive, your opponent must subtract 1 from all of his reserve rolls. In addition, if any enemy units arrive using the outflank rule, you may choose to make your opponent re-roll the dice used to determine which board edge these squads arrives [typo verbatim] from.

This is the wording exactly as it appears in the new IG codex.

The way it is written, does anybody see any way that taking two command squads with one Officer of the Fleet each would not stack their -1 to opponent reserves to a total -2 penalty every turn? The re-rolling of outflanking table edge cannot be stacked because there is no way to re-roll a re-roll, but the subtraction to reserves looks 100% cumulative.

The only way I don't see that stacking is if some sort of notation that duplicate advisers' abilities don't stack, listed somewhere else in the codex.
Is there a separate advisers rules section?

No, that's it.

Well there is two ways to see this.

First is that they stack and they get -2 to each roll.

The second is that each Model tells them to subtract one from the roll, so they don't stack, but are just redundant.

The only comparable other model off the top of my head are the eldar Autarchs, that have a very similar wording (the only difference is the Autarch is optional, not mandatory) so I would say they do stack

Simplest interpretation definetly seems to be that they stack.

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Simplest interpretation definetly seems to be that they stack.

Since when has that meant anything

It's pretty terrible isnt it, that we already have a huge list of FAQ's a month before the codex is even out "officially".

GW really is totally incompetent, aren't they?

Remember what we were saying about rewriting all the codexes, Gwar? I think it's about time we just do it...

Indeed, I think we need to start with the IG codex

But seriously, I actually hope this is not Cumulative, as it means anything wanting to come in from reserve most likely wont show up until T5, which is a bit over the top, and hoses a lot of armies too harshly.

Gwar! wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Simplest interpretation definetly seems to be that they stack.

Since when has that meant anything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Ok I correct myself:
Since when has that meant anything TO GAMES WORKSHOP

Ah, very true. /facepalm >_<

Excellent rebuttal, excellent response.

-golf clap-

Id say they stack with precidence coming from Autarch's, as mention previously. Thats my interpretation.

Seems pretty nasty. Kinda hurts Drop Pods lists a bit, and negates Double Autarch Eldar.

Gwar! wrote:Seems pretty nasty. Kinda hurts Drop Pods lists a bit, and negates Double Autarch Eldar.

Agreed, not to mention that if someone plays Deamons they're not going to be having an easy time either.

I feel like they're doing this to single out very powerful lists like the DP marines and daemons without thinking of who else it might be affected by it.

Either that or they hate Daemons. A Mech list that can take Inquisitorial Mystics and delay reserves. Aweso-oh wait.

I havent seen much in the way of total DP Marines since the new Dex. Not being able to have 2 Specials anymore pushed a lot of players away from that.

Reasons and tactics aside..

I think Deamons are the hardest hit. There army is defined by DS and they have no way to make an army from that Codex that doesnt rely upon it totally.

Where did you find this info anyway? Is there a leaked IG codex going around?

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Where did you find this info anyway? Is there a leaked IG codex going around?

No, some of us are special and got the codex early because we're friends with redshirts/managers.

But there is a leaked version out there, but asking for it is a big nono, so I wont mention it any more.

There are so many things im not liking about this IG dex =(

i play horde orks and daemons /sob

Gwar! wrote:

Drudge Dreadnought wrote:Where did you find this info anyway? Is there a leaked IG codex going around?

No, some of us are special and got the codex early because we're friends with redshirts/managers.

But there is a leaked version out there, but asking for it is a big nono, so I wont mention it any more.

and some stores have their preview copies

I see no reason why this wouldnt stack.

I have one advisor... -1 to Roll.
I take another advisor.... -1 to Roll.

Limits 0-1 advisor Per CCS.

So I take two CCS and take Two Advisors, each adding a negative 1.

-1+-1= -2

I really dont see why this is even up to discussion. Its plain as day written.

The only reason why people are demanding a FAQ is cause they play with deep striking something or another and just want to bitch.

Can we just all take a moment and remember that GW has absolutely no consistency because their system is too small for the range of miniatures and versions and armies?

and that helps how?

jp400 wrote:The only reason why people are demanding a FAQ is cause they play with deep striking something or another and just want to bitch.

ALL HAIL THE BENEVOLENT ONE! HAIL!

Seriously, no need to get rude or petty.

All we are saying is GW is highly inconsistent with these things, so for all we know it might be a total of -1 for reserves, but you make the enemy have to kill 2 models, or it could be -2.

Remember when the Thunderfire first came out? And people were like "Oh snap If I hit with 2 Tremor Shots you cant move cause you roll 2 dice less hurrrrrr" when that isn't the case? For all we know it might have been intended to be this way with this new stuff too, but just came off ambiguously. Not to mention -2 to reserves rolls just destroys daemons right off the bat, and seems a little too powerful even considering the rest of the codex.

jp400 wrote:I see no reason why this wouldnt stack.

I have one advisor... -1 to Roll.
I take another advisor.... -1 to Roll.

Limits 0-1 advisor Per CCS.

So I take two CCS and take Two Advisors, each adding a negative 1.

-1+-1= -2

I really dont see why this is even up to discussion. Its plain as day written.

The only reason why people are demanding a FAQ is cause they play with deep striking something or another and just want to bitch.

I have one advisor... the enemy subtracts 1 from his roll,
I purchase a second advisor.

The enemy continues to subtract 1 from his roll, this satisfies the requirements of both advisors as each one's special rule only requires the enemy to "subtract 1 from all his reserves rolls"

Its plain as day written in a confusing manner that can be misinterpreted.

The only reason why people are choosing to read it as cumulative is cause they play with imperial guard and get beaten by deep striking armies regularly.

Gwar! wrote:ALL HAIL THE BENEVOLENT ONE! HAIL!

Seriously, no need to get rude or petty.

So tell me, why did you open your mouth? Pot, Meet Kettle..........

And I wasnt being rude or Petty. Its a plain fact that people bitch when another army gets something cool that nerfs the army they play. Always has been this way and always will be.

Its people like you who overread everything that demand that everything needs a Faq cause its "unclear" even when said rule is plain as day.

All I can say is Drunkspleen Beat me to the punch.

Damn Ozzie Ninjas.

Also:

I MOCK YOU WITH FUNNY PICTURES HURRRRR!!!!!

Drunkspleen wrote:

The only reason why people are choosing to read it as cumulative is cause they play with imperial guard and get beaten by deep striking armies regularly.

Are you kidding me?

Really..... I play as a side army and have for years and im the one that usually lays the beat down with deep striking Melta/plasma vets.


Lets do some simple math yes?

-1+ -1= -2

Its not

-1+ -1= -1