New guard codex question.... master of the fleet

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.

**Bignutter**

So basically the master of the fleet allows you to cause -1 to your enemies reserve rolls....

does this mean that if you have 2 command squads with a master of the fleet each.... you get -2 to the reserve rolls?

**Lordhat**

It would seem so.

**Danny Internets**

Depends who you're asking...

If you play rules as written: yes
If you have some sort of personal objection to the rule: no

Or at least that's how previous discussions on this topic have gone.

**dietrich**

Danny Internets wrote:
If you play rules as written: yes
If you have some sort of personal objection to the rule: no

I think a better way to phrase it is:

If you play rules as written: yes
If you play rules as written: no

It's not clear. It does not say they stack (although I think that was the intent) or that they don't stack. Until GW FAQs it, it's clear as mud.

**Slackermagee**

Arguments for stacking come from the Eldar Autarch FAQ. Arguments against come from the FAQ for Ork Boss Poles not stacking. Seeing as the Ors boss poles are all part of one unit and the autarch's were each there own unit it would appear that, for now, the stacking argument holds more weight.

Personally: don't stack, it seems like it would just dick a number of people who put together army x relying on deep striking/reserves.

**Augustus**

They stack. Demons deserve it.

Game on.

**sourclams**

Both math and grammar say that they stack. You will, however, run into the 'Nerfhammar' interpretations, who tout that anything good cannot possibly be good and attempt to "disprove" it with spurious "logic" (re. Lash, Deffrolla Rams, Vulkan/Allies, Librarian GoI/Teleport Homer/Locator Beacon).

**Reecius**

Hahah, this again!

Yes, by grammar and math they stack, any who says differently will be ignoring what is written in the text of the rule.

Ignore any references to any other codex, etc. Play the rule as it is written.

Two separate models. Two separate powers. Two separate modifiers.

**Augustus**

Reecius, good to see you, looking forward to distribution of the weiner punches in yet another thread!

**Reecius**

Hahahaha, that was funny, HBMC's brass knuckles was the best part though!

**Augustus**

Indeed!

**avantgarde**

So if I was playing Apoc, if I took 5 Masters of the Fleet could it stack to the point my opponents would need 7s to get reserves? Holding them all back until the 5th turn.

**Reecius**

Well you could if Apoc used reserve rolls, which it doesn't.

**Black Blow Fly**

No one can say definitively which is correct so you will see certain people here use emotion and threats to say they are right in their interpretation. It's not a big deal either way and actually helps daemons a lot.

G

**Rangerrob**

Well an Eldar army that has 2 Autarchs can add +2 to their roll... Got that from the Eldar FaQ.

So if the wording is the same for both the Master of the Fleet and the Autarch...then yeah they could stack.

**Gwar!**

The argument for both stackinbg and not stacking is valid, so you have to clarify pre game untill GW stop being greedy pricks and actually do some work.

**JD21290**

Gwar, thier monkeys can only type so fast and only to a average level of detail

and who was on about stacking boss poles?
do you mean waaagh! banners? 0_o

**Augustus**

The Return of Gwar, this is the old thread reborn isn't it?

To spark more discussion, I'll say this:

don't armies with amazing capability from coming in from reserves deserve a balance (like demons and Eldar)?

I think its great that the IG get at least some cool teeth in their new rules!

It leaves me feeling elated, like I did with the new Ork dex!

If the IG didn't have any cool new powers wouldn't that be depressing?...

EDIT:
For example, don't want to face that IG gunline on turn one and choose to have your whole army in reserve to deprive them of turn 1 targets? Hmm, might be a bad idea now... I think that's an awesome idea!

**Razerous**

The MotF is perhaps worth it to buy when.. not so much for the -1 to reserves (although thats good) but mainly (i'd say) for the re-roll on board egde. This give you more control where its needed, for a shooty player.

But.. its not as effective as a re-roll for the board egdes you (as an IG player, with an astropath) want. As you get the egde you want 66% of the time. So its less effective detrimentally as the astropath is helpfull.

Likewise.. I agree with other posters threads on the matter... -2 on reserve rolls starts to favour towards the turn 5 threshold. While standard reserves deploy turns 2-5.. with -2 its quite likely alot/everything could deploy all on turn 5 which is bad for alotta reasons.

**sourclams**

Razerous wrote:with -2 its quite likely alot/everything could deploy all on turn 5 which is bad for alotta reasons.

It's actually almost entirely impossible for "alot/everything" to deploy all on turn 5. Even if you leave 100% of your army in reserve, 72% will be on the board by turn 4. It's likely that *something* will be left in reserve til T5, but as soon as T2 stuff will be showing up piecemeal.

**Razerous**

Mkay, fair doos. Still im pretty sure the bell curve will be higher, steeper & closer towards the later turns that standard un modifyed deployement.

My main point is, I think one is suffuicent for adverse reserve roll modification.

**jp400**

Like several others in here have stated:

RAW: Stacks
Rules As *Someone* wants them to be: It doesnt

I say RAW it does.

-1 + -1 = -2

**Gwar!**

jp400 wrote:Like several others in here have stated:

RAW: Stacks
Rules As *Someone* wants them to be: It doesnt

I say RAW it does.

-1 + -1 = -2

Apart from the fact where RaW also allows it to not stack but run parallel. to each other.

**jp400**

How, please explain this one to all of us. Please enlighten us......

**Gwar!**

I already went over it in the 9001 other threads on this subject. Search it up yourself

**jp400**

Right....

Simple math still stands...

I have one person that gives -1...

I take another person that gives -1...

Thats negative two overall.

**Gwar!**

Ok since you didnt bother to check my last posts:

Nowhere does the OotF state it stacks.
You can take two, both say I must "Subtract one from [my] reserve rolls".
I roll my reserve dice, both OotF say "Subtract one!"
I subtract one.
Both OotF go "right, sorted"

**jp400**

Lets see...

I take two guys... You subtract one from one, then subtract another from the other guy.

Simple yes?

**Gwar!**

But that's not what the rule says.
It doesn't say "Subtract one for each OoTF" it says "The officer of the fleet".

If it said each then yes it would stack. It doesn't say each, so it doesn't.

**jp400**

Well, based on your logic...
Then since it does not say specifically anywhere that they do not stack, then they must.