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.

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, how many times must it be said that Precedents and what other codex's say have no bearing on anything? GW themselves have stated as much. If we did go on precedents and used other codex's to clarify things then we would have 3++ Storm Shields for all Marines and would have to buy 6 or 7 Codex's in order to play one army.

This is disingenuous, if not downright deceptive. GW has stated that the rules in the Codex should take precedent over similar rules in another Codex. This is why we have different versions of the Storm Shield, Smoke Launcher, etc. This is not a "denial of precedent", but rather an attempt to preserve game balance. You may disagree with the policy, feeling that clearer rules are more valuable than balanced point costs, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

GW has never disavowed the use of common sense or precedent in resolving rules disputes.

Gwar!, your posts have clearly demonstrated that you're a smart person, but you've explicitly stated that "Common sense and GW rules should never mix!" in several threads, and I find that position to be absolutely maddening. It is possible to have a reasonable and polite discussion with someone who disagrees with you. It is much more difficult to have a reasonable and polite discussion with someone who takes the viewpoint that logic and reason are actively harmful to resolving rules disputes.

GW is bad at writing rules, but we do a great disservice to them and to ourselves when our dislike of their style causes us to assume that every ambiguity must be resolved in the most broken way possible.

Gwar! wrote:

onlainari wrote:It's at 85%, I suggest to the 15% to stop playing otherwise.

Yes, because DakkaDakka are the ultimate authority behind rules disputes... Oh wait!
I'll play it however I want thank you.

The argument for and against are both equally valid, and require clarification pre game with your opponent. Until GW errata it and fixes it, the argument will just go about in circles.

All I was trying to do is to stop you from telling people to play otherwise. Let them work out their tactics assuming that they stack.

Stop ME from telling people to play otherwise? What fething right do you have to tell me what I can or cannot do? If you had bothered to read my posts, you will see that I actualy propose that there is no hard answer until GW errata it.

And what happens when people work out their tactics and such, and then GW posts out an errata/FAQ saying "Nope, they don't stack". What then?

All you are doing is acting in an arrogant way and now want to save face because I called you out on it.

Dave47 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Secondly, how many times must it be said that Precedents and what other codex's say have no bearing on anything? GW themselves have stated as much. If we did go on precedents and used other codex's to clarify things then we would have 3++ Storm Shields for all Marines and would have to buy 6 or 7 Codex's in order to play one army.

This is disingenuous, if not downright deceptive. GW has stated that the rules in the Codex should take precedent over similar rules in another Codex. This is why we have different versions of the Storm Shield, Smoke Launcher, etc. This is not a "denial of precedent", but rather an attempt to preserve game balance. You may disagree with the policy, feeling that clearer rules are more valuable than balanced point costs, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

GW has never disavowed the use of common sense or precedent in resolving rules disputes.

Gwar!, your posts have clearly demonstrated that you're a smart person, but you've explicitly stated that "Common sense and GW rules should never mix!" in several threads, and I find that position to be absolutely maddening. It is possible to have a reasonable and polite discussion with someone who disagrees with you. It is much more difficult to have a reasonable and polite discussion with someone who takes the viewpoint that logic and reason are actively harmful to resolving rules disputes.

GW is bad at writing rules, but we do a great disservice to them and to ourselves when our dislike of their style causes us to assume that every ambiguity must be resolved in the most broken way possible.

You seem to misunderstand my viewpoint on a lot of this. GW does not have to try and lock down their rules with iron clad terminology, only the ones that WILL cause a great level of ambiguity. If I were really the horrible monster many people claim I am, There would be a 9001 Page Thread about how you can make Orders in the Opponents turn or Call the Waaaagh! Turn one if you go second.

Although, if you insist, I shall descend into the realm of "Common Sense" as you put it to argue my point (Please note I don't like to do this because it leads to "That's not what the rules are" type of arguments I strive to avoid by sticking to RaW):
OotF lets you -1 from your enemies reserve rolls. If you could -2 with 2, that means Armies like Daemons or Drop Pod Marines need 6's for their reserve on T2. This is utterly Game Breaking and the ability to practically shut down a whole race (Marine have a choice, Daemons dont) with the inclusion of 60 Points of Models seems just too far fetched in my Opinion. It's the view I also hold on MoO and Mortars (Again, its a mess of the rules because GW don't bother Proofreading Properly) Since it is not "Common Sense" that a 5 Point Mortar allows the MoO Shot to ignore its inaccuracy rule.

It's definitely not conclusive either way. Definitely to the top of the "Needs to be FAQ'd" list for the IG codex.

Centurian99 wrote:It's definitely not conclusive either way. Definitely to the top of the "Needs to be FAQ'd" list for the IG codex.

From all the crying I've seen on the Interwebs (not just on Dakka) the real top Question is "CAN MY SERGEANTS HAVE LASGUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????!?!?!?!?!?!??!"

That and "Can I issue Orders on my Opponents Turn?" and "Does the MoO when fired with a Mortar Suddenly become Super Accurate?"

I still find it a testament to Games Workshops idiocy that we have a huge list of FAQ's well before the Codex is even out. it wouldnt be so bad if GW issued Errata at a reasonable rate, but, they don't, even though it takes zero to no effort (hell, I am sure People like John Spencer and Yakface would do it for free in about 6 minutes[Just Speculation, not trying to tell Yakface what to do/Speaking for yakface etc etc Boiler-Plate Disclaimer]).

Damn Gwar, chill you. You are taking this too seriously. You probably wont ever even meet these people, its just the net, laugh it off.

The issue is not the math. Of course "Math" says they stack. But we are not dealing with math, we are dealing with English, and the issue arises from the ambiguity of whether or not they stack (2 OotF = -2) or if they add redundancy (2 MotF gives a blanket -1 but you have to kill 2 of them to remove it)

Right, we are dealing with English grammar.

The rule states THE astropath or OoF does .....

the word THE is a definite article referring to a specific person, place or thing. Therefore, so long as THE (meaning the specific astropath or OoF) is alive, the following modifier is applied. It is quite clear. It is referring to that one model and his one power. So, if there is more than one, you have more than one effect. Grammatically, there can be no other solution.....or mathematically.

If it said so long as A (a being an indefinite article referring to any member of a group of persons, places or things) astorpath or OoF does...., then the modifier would be +/-1 if there were one or one hundred of them.

Anything else brought into the argument is adding unsupported opinion and avoiding the RAW, which are completely clear in this case.

Plus, if there has to be a rule that you can only do what the rules say you can do, then you are following this as the rule for these advisors state there is a +/-1 modifier PER advisor, very clearly in the text of the rule as it is written. Denying this is denying the laws of grammar and mathematics in favor of something not in the text of the rules. Period.

Personally I don't think they stack. Since it is open to interpretation the best thing to do is play this rule conservatively and assume they don't until GW addresses this issue.

G

Reecius wrote:

the word THE is a definite article referring to a specific person, place or thing. Therefore, so long as THE (meaning the specific astropath or OoF) is alive, the following modifier is applied. It is quite clear. It is referring to that one model and his one power. So, if there is more than one, you have more than one effect. Grammatically, there can be no other solution.....or mathematically.

If it said so long as A (a being an indefinite article referring to any member of a group of persons, places or things) astorpath or OoF does...., then the modifier would be +/-1 if there were one or one hundred of them.

Reecius is correct. The rule conveys a benefit because you bought a model, not because the army includes a certain type of model. GW could have worded it, "An army that includes a living OoF...," which would clearly indicate the presence of one more OoFs would convey single benefit. That's not how it was written. The way it WAS written ties the benefit to the individual model, so more models is more benefits. I agree that grammatically the correct conclusion is to stack.

If we need more evidence, as others have said, the Eldar Autarch also stacks, so this mechanism is by no means a new thing for GW.

Model-based benefit + we've seen this from GW before = we should know how the rule works.

This would have been so simple if they'd just listed them in the rulebook as 0-1 per 3000pts or something.
I think looking at the rules that they do allow further modifiers for multiples, I also think that it is not the intention and represents a poorly written ruleset.

These additionals are supposed to represent fairly rare individuals in the force, not something to be taken as multiples. Officer of the fleet is calling down fire from the fleet, not fleets.

So I think it is viable in the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.

Gwar! wrote:

Sarigar wrote:Personally, I would have had it up for debate if GW hadn't set a precedence about stacking bonuses. Except for Gwar, everyone I've ever communicated with over the internet, in person or gamed with abides by the GW FAQ's. As a non IG player (but does play Eldar), I'll have no issues allowing stacking.

OK firstly, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I actually do follow the FAQ's where they are actually clarifying something, just not when they change rules entirely (that is what errata are for)

Secondly, how many times must it be said that Precedents and what other codex's say have no bearing on anything? GW themselves have stated as much. If we did go on precedents and used other codex's to clarify things then we would have 3++ Storm Shields for all Marines and would have to buy 6 or 7 Codex's in order to play one army.

sourclams wrote:Math says they stack.

Gee, way to read the whole thread.

The issue is not the math. Of course "Math" says they stack. But we are not dealing with math, we are dealing with English, and the issue arises from the ambiguity of whether or not they stack (2 OotF = -2) or if they add redundancy (2 MotF gives a blanket -1 but you have to kill 2 of them to remove it)

First, it's not a personal attack. It was simply pointing out what you've been posting in the last month how worthless the FAQ's are and that they hold little to no bearing on the game. I've never read or met a person that doesn't abide by the FAQ's. Saying you will only follow certain parts of an FAQ and not others, has got to be difficult to explain to your opponent. I'm taking a big leap by saying this: you probably don't play with folks outside of your own group, and probably not participate in tourneys. If you do, I really can't fathom your explanations to them how you won't abide by parts of or all of FAQ's.

Precedence? Where has GW stated there is absolutely no precedence? As far as I can tell, they have set a precedence by telling folks to refer to the codex rules over the rulebook in case of a dispute. In the absence of clarification from GW, I'm sticking to my guns and will accept it if IG players want to pay the extra points in order to get a cumulative bonus. I think it would be disengenuous of me playing an Eldar army that my 2 Autarchs give me a +2 for reserves, however unclear it is in the codex but was ruled in an FAQ, but not give the IG player the stack. The only reason I have for not giving the stack is because I don't want him to have it---that is weak.

Is it unclear? Yes. Does GW do things that make me groan and shake my head? Yes. After 20 years of playing with these toy soldiers, it's just something I accept. GW has set a precedence over 20 years of not writing technical rules for 40K, and I don't think that is going to change in the near future. It would require a massive change in the way the company thinks about game design. I have fun with the games and can come to some type of resolution with almost any opponent should an issue arise.

The question of this thread was not to absolutely define how the Astropaths/Officers work. It was 'how will you play it'. I stated how I would play it and gave reasons for why I will play it that way. If you disagree with it, that's fine. Arguing how my points are wrong is not the topic of discussion and frankly, unwarranted.

Thanks GW. I'd let my IG opponent use them as a 'stack'. If I was playing IG, I don't know that I'd plan my list about it. If you are playing IG, the best thing to do is check with the Tourney Organizer beforehand and/or come to a consensus in your gaming group.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Personally I don't think they stack. Since it is open to interpretation the best thing to do is play this rule conservatively and assume they don't until GW addresses this issue.

G

Aren't you building a Demon army?

Gwar! wrote:Stop ME from telling people to play otherwise? What fething right do you have to tell me what I can or cannot do? If you had bothered to read my posts, you will see that I actualy propose that there is no hard answer until GW errata it.

And what happens when people work out their tactics and such, and then GW posts out an errata/FAQ saying "Nope, they don't stack". What then?

All you are doing is acting in an arrogant way and now want to save face because I called you out on it.

I'm surprised my last post came off as "saving face". Honestly I didn't even notice you calling me out on anything, I don't even know what you called me out on.

But your terrible assumptions aside, you shouldn't tell players to play they don't stack, I should tell players to play they do stack.

Because what matters is how it's going to be ruled at your next tournament.

Sarigar wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Personally I don't think they stack. Since it is open to interpretation the best thing to do is play this rule conservatively and assume they don't until GW addresses this issue.

G

Aren't you building a Demon army?

Hurrrr... I am and to be honest I would prefer for this to stack as I have had some discussions with gaming friends and we all believe this would actually be beneficial to daemonic hordes. However I prefer for rules to be fairly applied, so I won't go with an interpretation that is most helpful for me. I always try to be fair as possible.

G

The next poll should ask:
Do they stack?
1.Yes
2. No
3. No b/c i play a reserve based army and dont want to lose.

I love how people can fly their arguments in the face of math, grammar, and basic logic and then claim that their obstinate refusal to concede constitutes genuine ambiguity in the rules. Just because it is potentially game-breaking doesn't mean it isn't crystal clear.

Wow, I can't understand how anyone still thinks its debatable unless they don't grasp the English language very well. If you have more than one model with a power, they both use it, just like a combination of any two like models.

Model A has a power: +/-1 modifier that applies so long as he is alive.

Model B has a power: +/-1 modifier that applies so long as he is alive.

Models A and B are alive.

Therefore: There are two separate +1/-1 modifiers, which equal +/-2 to those who don't understand math as well as English.

How in the hell can anyone deny the obvious?

Personal opinion: Yes GW seems to rule in favor of stacking quite often, but the reserves rolls are a central component of an entire race (not to mention any number of armies people have painstakingly crafted over the years). While math and the use of the English language would indicate that these modifiers could stack, simple courtesy should mandate that you not dick Chaos Daemons (and the handful of players whose months of work went into armies relying on the reserves roll).

Danny Internets wrote:I love how people can fly their arguments in the face of math, grammar, and basic logic and then claim that their obstinate refusal to concede constitutes genuine ambiguity in the rules. Just because it is potentially game-breaking doesn't mean it isn't crystal clear.

Yeah, the rules aren't ambiguous at all, that's why the poll has a total consensus on the way this rule should be played.

No matter, I'll just smile and say "Told you so" when GW do FAQ it to not stack.

And if not, Well, more fool them for killing off a good number of armies.

Nahhh, see, when they do get around to FAQing it in July 2011, they'll say that the plus to your own reserve rolls stack and the minus to opposing reserve rolls do not stack, just so they can cloud it even more. That way both IG and Eldar can bring in their reserves on turn 2 with a 2+, but it doesn't totally hose other players reserve rolls.

For the record, IMO both stack.

It needs a FAQ. I agree that it should stack, but wouldn't care if it didn't. In my games so far I have found one is usually enough.

Capt K

Gwar! wrote:No matter, I'll just smile and say "Told you so" when GW do FAQ it to not stack.

And if not, Well, more fool them for killing off a good number of armies.

Yo my trollish brother I wil b rite behind you rite bside you saying 'tol you so! Tol you so!'

G

Ok I usually would not do this, but seeing so an argument like this just got me laughing. So I am going to throw the fluff word out there!!

2 Officers means 2 ships disrupting reserves, are they both equally as good at stopping reserves therefore still only giving -1 or do they know how to work in tandum giving -2?!?!?!

*plays song of doom*

It is completly clear. They stack. Personally I think that the next demon player who says "that is going to crush all of the people who spent months on their deamons" should be punched in the weiner by HBMC's brass knuckels. That is the lamest thing I have personally ever heard. OHHH NOES! Our Brken Armies jst gots a counter. Woes is Meas.

UH? Yes they stack.

(I don't want to get punched in the weiner.)

- Man that was funny...

don_mondo wrote:Nahhh, see, when they do get around to FAQing it in July 2011, they'll say that the plus to your own reserve rolls stack and the minus to opposing reserve rolls do not stack, just so they can cloud it even more. That way both IG and Eldar can bring in their reserves on turn 2 with a 2+, but it doesn't totally hose other players reserves.

Hmm needs to be FAQ'd but we know how often that happens (watch the guard dex get random clarifications and leave key questions unanswered)...

As I don't play deamons, does the 1st wave come in automatically (like deathwing assult)? If so then I dont see it being to big of an issue as the deamon player just leaves his squishy troops in reserve for contesting/claiming later in game giving guard less time to shoot them. I would also then expect guard players to stop when 24 bloodcrushers come in right infront of them. Deamons will adapt...as any army does when a new dex comes out.

As to the rules question, I can see it going in any number of the suggested directions.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:I love how people can fly their arguments in the face of math, grammar, and basic logic and then claim that their obstinate refusal to concede constitutes genuine ambiguity in the rules. Just because it is potentially game-breaking doesn't mean it isn't crystal clear.

Yeah, the rules aren't ambiguous at all, that's why the poll has a total consensus on the way this rule should be played.

Oh, I see--you're new to 40k.

Put an internet poll up asking how people play just about any rule found in the rulebook or any codex and you'll fail to reach a consensus. This is especially true if you pick a rule that people think is "cheesy" or "abusive".

It only helps daemonic hordes

Green Blow Fly wrote:It only helps daemonic hordes

I think you're right. I'm a huge proponent of 2 CHQs, but even in the most "hardcore" tournament setting, I wouldn't bring 2 Fleet Officers, as I wouldn't have time to kill the slew of last-turn objective grabbers.

That said, I find this thread maddening, in large part because it seems to be a bunch of smart people arguing against another group of smart people, except the second group of smart people have an agenda. Either they feel the combo is super-broken, and want to nerf it in order to keep enjoying their games, or else they have an axe to grind with GW, and so are trying their best to break the game in order to make a "point," or else they're just good old-fashioned internet trolls.

I support fixing broken combos, but let's call a spade a spade. It's like trying to read the Ork rules to only support one Nob Biker retinue. It might be a good policy, but you need to be honest that you're setting policy, and not pretend that you're merely an impartial enforcer of the rules.

And before you accuse me of stirring up unfair accusations, it's worth noting that the first time this issue came up Gwar! took the stance that the bonuses do stack, only abandoning that view when he saw an opportunity to prove that GW is incompetent and troll people on an internet forum.