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.

I have shown that historically abilities to add to reserve rolls are cumulative. One astropath adds +1 to reserve rolls, and second astropath adds another +1.

You have shown no evidence or Precedent to support your belief that the abilities do not stack.

Red_Lives wrote:You have shown no evidence or Precedent to support your belief that the abilities do not stack.

The rules do not say they do. "It doesn't say I can't" is not how 40k works, and you know it.

Precedent means nothing in 40k, especially precedent from a codex not written for 5th edition. Until GW Errata or FAQ this, RAW they do not stack, no matter how much you wail and whine.

You have still yet to show evidence to prove your point of view.

Red_Lives wrote:You have still yet to show evidence to prove your point of view.

Yes I did:
The rules do not say they do. "It doesn't say I can't" is not how 40k works.

And I didn't even have to wedge in 4 or 5 other codexs to do it!

Are you able to prove it without having to rely on other codexs that have no bearing on it?

Yes the rules are cumulative, that point is clear the main rule book explicitly states what abilities are not cumulative. (re-rolls, additional melee attacks, etc)

Look at it like this:
Whilst the astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls. (+1)

Whilst the astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls. (+1)

I have the bonus twice, i paid points to have the bonus twice. It states "The astopath" (Singular), "not whilst astropaths are on the table" (plural)

meaning they are two separate bonuses that happen to do the same thing.

I have shown HISTORICAL evidence that this is true.

You still have yet to show any reason they shouldn't stack. IMHO the rules do say they stack from just the Guard codex. Since +1 +1=+2

Red_Lives wrote:You still have yet to show any reason they shouldn't stack.

You know, repeating this does not make it true.
I have shown they dont stack. Namely, the rules do not say they do.

But fine, I'll explain it to you:
Imperial Guard Player begins his turn, and has 2 Astropaths. He then rolls his reserve dice, for a result of 3.

Both Astropaths are checking for their special rule:
Astropath One: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: False)
Astropath Two: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: False)

You then add one to the dice for a result of 4:
Astropath One: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: True)
Astropath Two: You Have rolled a Reserve Dice and MUST add one to the result. Have you added one to the result? (Status: True)
Therefore, adding just one satisfies both Astropaths Special Rule.

Furthermore, your fallacious argument of "I paid for it twice so it must work twice cause that's what the GW peoples want" is incorrect. For all you know the intent could be to add redundancy in case one was killed. Considering that is what the rule does, I would assume that was also the intent.

1st of all i must apologise for sticking this in the wrong forum.
This has not half opened up a can of worms.
It looks as if it maybe be another on for the FAQ and i have a feeling that they will say they wont stack.
Either way its fine for me as i will stick a officer of the fleet in.
Gw have cocked up twice with 2 big ones! this and the darn Valk base.

How does (+1)+(+1)not equal (+2)

I just can't understand how they won't stack. Since to me it reads very clearly that they do in-fact stack, and historically abilities that add to reserve rolls in-fact stack.

There are 2 astropaths on the table.

While astropath A is alive i get a +1 to my reserve rolls. While Astropath B is alive i get another +1 for a total of +2. I just can't understand how this can not be the case RAW or RAI.

Red_Lives wrote:How does (+1)+(+1)not equal (+2)

I just can't understand how they won't stack. Since to me it reads very clearly that they do in-fact stack, and historically abilities that add to reserve rolls in-fact stack.

There are 2 astropaths on the table.

While astropath A is alive i get a +1 to my reserve rolls. While Astropath B is alive I get another +1 for a total of +2. I just can't understand how this can not be the case RAW or RAI.

Read my post, I explained it out in minute detail. You Add one and both Astropaths rules are satisfied.

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it must be wrong.

I agree with Red_Lives.

This debate reminds me of a long ago debate between Stelek and the rest of the forum on if Chaos Sorcerers with Wings take dangerous terrain tests. The rules said they move like Jump Infantry but did not specify if they became Jump Infantry, the argument was that the rules never specifically stated that they are Jump Infantry. It was shown through evidence that similar situations had occurred and in those situations they took dangerous terrain tests. Although I did defend Stelek's side until the evidence was brought up. Or at least I shut up once evidence was produced.

The funny thing about trying to use a FAQ to set a precedent is that you can almost always find one to support your position. For example, one could use this FAQ for the old Chapter Approved Sisters of Battle army list as a 'precedent' for this situation:

Q. Are the attack penalties of the Flail of Chastisement:
a) ‘stackable’ (ie, if you have two models with Flails in base-to-base contact with an enemy model, would it lose two attacks down to a minimum of one),
b) applied once per model no matter how many Flails of Chastisement are in contact with it or,
c) something else?

A. b

Q. Similarly, are the morale penalties from two or more Blades of Admonition:
a) cumulative,
b) only applied once per unit, or
c) something else?

A. b

Now I honestly have no idea which way GW intended for it to be played in this situation, but trying to claim that an unrelated FAQ sets some sort of 'precedent' is just ridiculous.

My point is using the eldar FAQ is that the ability is almost the same. It was the last time an ability of this nature occurred.

40k has no rules for stacking modifiers. Therefore, the simplest, most intuitive route, is simply add all modifiers to any roll which triggers them.

Red_Lives wrote:OK what we have here is a classic Pythagorean Vs Aristotle debate.

Pythagorean belief- One must show evidence to to use in a discussion. To prove existence

Aristotle belief- Prove me wrong

You sound edumacated more gooder! (I originally mispelled edumacated)

willydstyle wrote:40k has no rules for stacking modifiers. Therefore, the simplest, most intuitive route, is simply add all modifiers to any roll which triggers them.

Agreed.

In declaring that the rules do not say _____ therefore _____ does not exist, you are assuming that GW rules are exhaustive (we know that's not the case) and that the game is made somehow better by adherence to the strictest interpretation.

In other words, where in the rulebook does it say that I can deploy a squad in a non-dedicated transport?

Do you disallow this in games you play?

Same argument for the stacking of astropaths. If you truly believe that 1+1=1, then I hope you never begin turn 1 with a Wolf Lord inside a Land Raider.

roll a D6

The Astropath is not a UNIQUE character, therefore can be taken twice, thus allowing its ability to stack

Just because you can take him twice is not proof that the ability can stack (see the FAQ I quoted above for two examples of items that could be taken twice which do NOT stack).

I see merit in both sides of the argument.
Regarding the anti-stack side:
The rule states that "you" (The player) add one to the reserve roll. Since you add the one, this would satisfy both astropaths simultaneously. In addition, the second part of the rule states that you may re-roll outflanking, and you cannot re-roll a re-roll, suggesting the rule only takes effect once.
Regarding the pro-stack side:
The article "the" is used, meaning specific. "Add 1" is a command. Since there are two specific astropaths, the command is completed twice. "You" still "add" one, just twice because each astropath gives "you" the command to "add."

I lean more towards the pro side. However, I would still ask my opponent beforehand, and I would ask judges immediately at a tournament. An FAQ is badly needed.

I agree with red_lives that they stack.

willydstyle wrote:40k has no rules for stacking modifiers. Therefore, the simplest, most intuitive route, is simply add all modifiers to any roll which triggers them.

This is all that needs to be said.

And using a like situation with a like ability can set a precedent.

"While the Autarch is alive, you may choose to add 1 to your rolls for reserves,"..

FAQ explains that you may add 1, 2 or none if you have two atuarchs. That would be precedent to another HQ that has the same ability.

The Flail is an item that removes attacks. Precedent would be set for other items that remove attacks when used in multiple.

Gwar is just trying to carry a good argument for the other side. It just doesn't work though.

And again, trying to use a FAQ for a different situation as a 'precedent' is ridiculous. You can make up all of the reasons that you want that one FAQ sets a precedent and another doesn't and you still have nothing that backs up your claims.

Not exactly sure how it is different, other than it being an Eldar FAQ and an Autarch.

Doesn't precedent mean using a ruling for a similar situation, which this is?

Unless now similar doesn't mean similar, or ruling, or an orange isn't even an orange....

And again, just because one FAQ happens to be about reserves does not mean that it sets a precedent and the others don't. None of them set a 'precedent' and the FAQs never once say that they set a 'precedent' for other situations, do they? No.

The FAQs never claim to be for anything other than the specific situation covered. If you want to claim that one FAQ sets a 'precedent', then anyone can claim that any other FAQ is a precedent as well and have just as valid a position as you do.

I disagree when abilities are worded similar in nature and function.

Q. Are the attack penalties of the Flail of Chastisement:
a) ‘stackable’ (ie, if you have two models with Flails in base-to-base contact with an enemy model, would it lose two attacks down to a minimum of one),
b) applied once per model no matter how many Flails of Chastisement are in contact with it or,
c) something else?

A. b

Q. Similarly, are the morale penalties from two or more Blades of Admonition:
a) cumulative,
b) only applied once per unit, or
c) something else?

A. b

Is not a similar ability to astropaths in wording and or function.

And again, that's nothing than an opinion. That does not make it a fact. Show us an actual rule that says it sets a precedent.

And yes, my example is indeed similar. It's two of the same thing. Seems similar enough for me.

But that's not the point, if there was an official ruling on the matter in one way or another it wouldn't be an issue, the point in bringing up other FAQs is a temporary solution until GW game designers get off their lazy asses and give us a relevant FAQ.

The trouble with your 'temporary' solution is that your trying to pass it off as more than just that. You're trying to pass it off as how it is. based on a FAQ for a different situations (Autarchs and not Astropaths). You never once said "the rules are unclear so this is how I'd play it" but you are saying "this is how it is".

And it's the best assumption we can make because there is no rule of law covering it (or FAQ). If there was another situation that was similar and on not stacking bonuses to reserve rolls, that would be a precedent the other way. It may be opinion, but that is precedent.

There is no real answer, what we are doing is searching for a similar situation in the rules, and applying, which is a precedent set on a like situation governing an HQ that provides a bonus to Reserve rolls, and whether or not it stacks. It lends credence to our supposition that it does stack, and in most cases throughout the rules modifiers do. There are very specific cases where they do not.

But all this is just argument, and since there is no clear answer, neither way is correct, but I am going with precedent