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.

A-ha Dave47, you have found my evil secret!

And yeah, I am one of those people who like to enjoy their games.

As I have said before, there is no real answer because people will (and they will, you have me after all) be stubborn as a Donkey, and it needs GW to clarify via an errata to shut everyone up.

So in short, yeah, I feel it could swing either way, I just like argument for arguments sake (and like to join the "weaker" side because I like a challenge )

Gwar ! Is my troolish ape brother !!!
G

This argument is over. The wiener punching gang (HBMC is the heavy hitter!) has struck again! Many a bruised crotch was administered to the unfaithful!

But if they faq it and we are wrong, OK. But the rule stands as it is written now, no question.

If you hate it, house rule it and be done with it.

Reecius wrote:
But if they faq it and we are wrong, OK. But the rule stands as it is written now, no question.

Wow, aren't you arrogant. If it were so clear would there be a thread about it?

It's clear as tar.

no its clear as air we can't see it at all

This thread has been W. Bushed. Both sides state their correctness and simply bluster until the supreme court sends down a verdict.

Arguments for stacking:
Singular precedent with Eldar autarchs
Works mathematically

Arguments against stacking:
Hoses a few armies (CD get 50% of their force vs the whole damn regiment for quite a few turns)
Why would GW throw a hard counter in against an army they just finished putting out last year?


Here's the rule, one last time, verbatim from the codex:

"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 from."

Before analyzing the RAW: I believe that second to last word should, grammatically, be arrive.

While two Officers of the Fleet can be taken the RAW states that "...your opponent must subtract 1 from all his reserve rolls...", but it does not state that the opponent must apply a -1 modifier to each reserves roll for each Officer of the Fleet. Given the RAW your opponent would subtract 1 (not apply -1) to his reserve rolls and have satisfied the penalty both Officers of the Fleet impart. There is no math involved with this interpretation, just a little legalese ( ).

In a second interpretation it has been argued that your opponent must apply the Intercept Reserves rule for each Officer of the Fleet present. This would involve the addition of both '1's, and as these numbers are not -1 modifiers this interpretation seems tenuous at best. The best interpretation of the RAW here is that your opponent must first subtract 1 for the first Officer of the Fleet's penalty before applying the second.

The precedent for this 'segmented' application of penalties/bonuses (i.e. the -1 modifier) stems from the use of the Eldar Autarch HQ. This rule states that "Autarchs are superb strategists, able to command the Eldar units in perfect synchronicity. Any Eldar army including one or more Autarchs has a strategy rating of 4. While the Autarch is alive, you may choose to add 1 to your rolls for reserves, regardless of whether he is in play or not (a roll of 1 always counts as a failure.)" It has been stated that in FAQs GW has made it clear that two Autarchs allow for the addition of 2 to each reserves roll. There is a subtle difference between the two rules: for the Officer of the Fleet, "...your opponent must ..." and for the Autarch, "you may choose to ". With the Autarch you may choose to add 1 and an additional 1 for the second Autarch to your reserves rolls. In the case of the Officer of the Fleet your opponent must subtract 1 from his reserve rolls. He does so, fulfilling the requirements of the Intercept Reserves penalty.

Does the second penalty 'segment' and affect it as wel,l being a different unit, or should we treat intercept reserves as a general HQ rule (much like USRs)? The RAW do not address this issue, but I have been lead to believe that the Eldar FAQ has. They are two units, are segmented, and thus apply two different penalties to the same roll.

Unfortunate result... I don't support this at all (poor CD players) but it is a ruling based on the best available evidence of GW's intent. My suggestion: play it out against CD/DP SM players and see what happens. Maybe have a thread for games tallies and such things.

Slackermagee wrote:
Arguments against stacking:
Hoses a few armies (CD get 50% of their force vs the whole damn regiment for quite a few turns)
Why would GW throw a hard counter in against an army they just finished putting out last year?

er if i was playing CD then it would be ether 50% worthless daemons or 50% my actual force ... after all you only need to make sure that the 2 halfs have the same number of units ... for example first turn i give you 3 units of 1 fiend of slaanesh and 3 units of 3 Screamers that a low 234pts Now what happens when turn 5 rolls in and my army turns up ... Kill point games you just spred these weak units between the stronger ones

Reecius wrote:
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?

Awesome, then GW's FAQ is wrong and I can have WS 10 nobs by having infinite WAAAGH Banners.

Not all modifiers across the board stack. And they end up FAQing it to say "nope, don't stack". So there is clear evidence that it is not 100% consistent across the board and in some circumstances GW intended them not to stack.

Anyone who says "it is obviously clear" by consistent example that all modifiers in all other aspects of 40k stack simply are not correct on that justification.

@nkelsch
WOW!! Thanks man, thanks soooooo much! It is all clear to me now, obviously because GW FAQ'd something from the Ork codex that is totally unrelated and has nothing at all to do with the Imperial Guard codex, that advisors abilities don't stack!!! DUDE! How did I not see it?

Expect a wiener punch soon!

Wow, aren't you arrogant. If it were so clear would there be a thread about it?

I would respond to you, but I am far too arrogant to engage in debate with someone so obviously beneath me!


So according to you guys:
You can't get a +2 to your cover save for going to ground and having cam cloaks or having a techmarine/master of the forge/Lysander, etc. then as well? Any other rule you guys would like to make up?

Ah whatever, this is like arguing with petulant children. All you guys have is opinion and unsupported claims that are not written in the rule. You are bringing in outside and unconnected issues. The rule as stated is clear unless you are incompetent in English or Math. to try and manipulate what is SO CLEARLY WRITTEN! The only reason people are arguing against it is because they DO NOT LIKE IT. I hate Lash of Submission, but I don't through a temper tantrum because someone uses it.

If GW FAQ's it and says, hey we meant that it could only be +/-1 then ok, that is the new rule. Until then, unless you house rule it or cheat, it is stackable. I'm not saying its a nice thing to do or that I even plan on doing it, but it is the RAW.

Reecius wrote:@nkelsch
WOW!! Thanks man, thanks soooooo much! It is all clear to me now, obviously because GW FAQ'd something from the Ork codex that is totally unrelated and has nothing at all to do with the Imperial Guard codex, that advisors abilities don't stack!!! DUDE! How did I not see it?

Expect a wiener punch soon!

Wow, aren't you arrogant. If it were so clear would there be a thread about it?

I would respond to you, but I am far too arrogant to engage in debate with someone so obviously beneath me!


So according to you guys:
You can't get a +2 to your cover save for going to ground and having cam cloaks or having a techmarine/master of the forge/Lysander, etc. then as well? Any other rule you guys would like to make up?

Ah whatever, this is like arguing with petulant children. All you guys have is opinion and unsupported claims that are not written in the rule. You are bringing in outside and unconnected issues. The rule as stated is clear unless you are incompetent in English or Math. to try and manipulate what is SO CLEARLY WRITTEN! The only reason people are arguing against it is because they DO NOT LIKE IT. I hate Lash of Submission, but I don't through a temper tantrum because someone uses it.

If GW FAQ's it and says, hey we meant that it could only be +/-1 then ok, that is the new rule. Until then, unless you house rule it or cheat, it is stackable. I'm not saying its a nice thing to do or that I even plan on doing it, but it is the RAW.

No, it isnt RAW. By RAW you can read it both ways, so if you go by only one and claim its the RAW you will be the one cheating. Either way will need a houserule untill FAQed. (Even if I personally think they should stack it also seems to powerful)

Reecius wrote:
So according to you guys:
You can't get a +2 to your cover save for going to ground and having cam cloaks or having a techmarine/master of the forge/Lysander, etc. then as well? Any other rule you guys would like to make up?

I have actually seen people attempt to make that claim. I thought their "rules" justification was just as stupid on those as on this.

I agree with you that people will try to grab any and every straw if they don't like something. I mean, just think about Deffrollaz, Gate of Infinity, and Lash of Submission, and the incredible number of posts trying to "disprove" them.

Reecius wrote:@nkelsch
WOW!! Thanks man, thanks soooooo much! It is all clear to me now, obviously because GW FAQ'd something from the Ork codex that is totally unrelated and has nothing at all to do with the Imperial Guard codex, that advisors abilities don't stack!!! DUDE! How did I not see it?

So according to you guys:
You can't get a +2 to your cover save for going to ground and having cam cloaks or having a techmarine/master of the forge/Lysander, etc. then as well? Any other rule you guys would like to make up?

If GW FAQ's it and says, hey we meant that it could only be +/-1 then ok, that is the new rule. Until then, unless you house rule it or cheat, it is stackable. I'm not saying its a nice thing to do or that I even plan on doing it, but it is the RAW.

Imo RAW currently can go either way until its FAQ'd.

Your opposition is not arguing that nothing stacks, they are arguing that not everthing does stack...some things do and some don't

To be honest the WAAAGH! banner faq is just as relivent as the Eldar Autarch FAQ in this debate bc it is not part of the Guard dex either.

some things stack while others don't. For instance the old BA deathmasks used to stack when an opponent was taking a leadership test after losing combat... Hee... Back then -2 to your opponent's leadership was huge. The problem here is that apparently the codex does not explicitly state whether or not the astopaths can stack. The best thing to do when unsure is to take most interpretation in my opinion. Like I said though I would let an opponent stack the effect in this case but first I would explain why and let them decide. To me that is the most fair approach.

G

Modquisition on:
This thread is closed pending review for disciplinary action due to trolling.
Modquisition off