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.

jp400 wrote:Well, based on your logic...
Then since it does not say specifically anywhere that they do not stack, then they must.

OK then, the rules don't say I can roll a dice and on a 1+ I win the game.

The rules do not say I Cannot give my Devastators Volcano Cannons, so I Can!

40k is a restrictive rule set. Unless it specifically says it does, it does not.

Gwar! wrote: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.

Right, it says 'the', not 'a', so you have to apply the ability for each officer of the fleet that you may have. If the rule said 'a[n]' officer of the fleet then you'd have an argument, but since it is 'the', each individual applies his bonus and we come up with a cumulative -2.

Of course, that's looking at it RAW, not Rules-As-I-Want-Them-To-Be-Written-So-I-Don't-Have-To-Tryhammer.

You're asking for extra specificity that isn't needed. It doesn't have to say that they stack; the selection is not 0-1 and the bonus is applied for every selection based on how it is written.

And as I have said, because of the uselessness that is the English language, it is just as valid to assume either way. Just because one way seems "Simpler" doesn't mean anything, especially when it is GW we are talking about.

Knowing GW they will most likely FAQ it to make Astropaths Stack but OotF not, just to feth with us.

Its very ambiguous. Sadly, it will prob never get an FAQ.

I personally would play they stack, but I can see and understand the argument against it.

It is not ambiguous, and we have been over this a million times.

English is not useless or unclear when used correctly. If you take the time to research the words and the grammar used, it is quite clear. It is unclear to those who are ignorant of the rules of language and the meanings of words or to those who choose to avoid the facts because of an ulterior motive.

I work with words for a living. The rule leaves no other conclusion other than the fact that there are two separate modifiers to the die role. There is absolutely NOTHING in the wording of the rule as it is written that indicates any other possible outcome. If there is, I challenge someone to show it to me.

What the Eldar or Ork codex say has NO bearing on this argument. What is or is not "precedent" is irrelevant. All that should come into play is what the rule exactly states. Anything else is obscuring the facts. We have everything we need to answer this question in the IG codex.

In the end, there are two individual models with a power each. Each power has an effect on a die roll. That is all there is to it. Anything else is a violation of the rule, if that is unclear then open a dictionary and a grammar guidebook and dissect the rule word by word. It is crystal clear.

I don't think it is all that nice to do to some armies, but I think having a dual lash army or Nob Bikers is lame too. I won't tell someone they can't do it, because then I would be cheating.

If I was playing someone in a friendly game and they said, "hey, I play a deepstriking army, and I would really appreciate it if you would not use two MoF's as it makes the game no fun for me," I would say, "no problem, dude, I will change my list."

What makes me mad are the people who are obviously intelligent yet deny the truth and try to say that the rule indicates what it clearly does not.

Hell, GWAR! (no offense buddy) even said they stack until he realized the implications and reversed his stance.

So all I say is be honest.

Is it RAW: Yes.

Is it potentially broken: Maybe

If you don't like it, house rule it or politely ask your opponent to not use it as it makes the game no fun for your Pod army (or whatever). Anyone who is reasonable should be OK with that.

But do not try and influence others to see things incorrectly because it benefits you, that is irresponsible.

On a second note, why doesn't someone e-mail the rules guys and see what GW has to say about it? At least that would give an indication as to what the RAI was.

Reecius wrote:Hell, GWAR! (no offense buddy) even said they stack until he realized the implications and reversed his stance.

Actually, you are a little wrong there. My original stance was that they do stack, because I was being influenced by the precedent set in the Eldar Codex. When I was reminded that Precedents mean feth all and each codex has to remain separate, I rethought my position and realised that the rules could be interpreted either way.

And not to mention that the ability of 60 points of models to feth over an entire codex/heavily fluffy style of play of another is just idiotic to the extreme.

Reecius wrote:On a second note, why doesn't someone e-mail the rules guys and see what GW has to say about it? At least that would give an indication as to what the RAI was.

Oh God-Emperor no, please don't do this. It will just cause more argument, because the "Rules Guys" are not the people who wrote the codex's and are not official by any stretch of the imagination.

I tend to agree, but lately they seem to be getting better. Its not official in my opinion, but at least it gives more indication of what GW meant when the wrote the rule.

And sorry if I misrepresented you on the flip flop, that is how it appeared.

They may be "getting better" but until GW either hire an OFFICAL Errata and FAQ team or get Cavatore to deliver written in his own blood what the "intent" was, it wont be good enough

Hahaha, fair enough! I sometimes wonder if the writer of the rules knows what his intention was.

GW have writers? That's a shocker. Next you will be telling me the Tooth Fairy isn't real and GW are run by overly greedy donkey-caves.