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.

And yet again, it's still just an 'assumption'. It's not a fact. Plus added to the fact that there are other items which do NOT stack means that all you have is an opinion and not a 'precedent'. FAQs are not 'precedents' and never claim to be. You're still passing off an unrelated FAQ as something more than what it is.

Do you even know what a 'precedent' is?

Red_Lives wrote:Do you even know what a 'precedent' is?

It's like pattycake.

@ red_lives:

From everything he says, he understands what a precedent is. Maybe you need help understanding Ghaz's point.

You brought up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability stacking.

Ghaz proceeded to bring up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability not stacking.

The point Ghaz is making is that neither one can be considered a precedent, since both are for different units than the one in question, no matter how similar.

Since the precedents don't agree, we need to wait for clarification from GW in the form of an FAQ about this particular unit, since we have NO FAQ for this unit.

So, since the rules as written don't say you can, you cannot until it has been stated (by GW, not by you) that you can.

not exactly,
I brought up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability stacking, which had very similar wording and function.

Where Gaz brought up an unrelated ability in form and function.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also to me by RAW its clear that the astropaths do stack from just the GW Guard codex.

both are for different units than the one in question, no matter how similar

I expressly stated the problem with your argument. Please do try to read more closely

Also, I'm glad it's clear to you, but it is not clear to everyone.

I'm certainly not trying to state that it will never stack. I expect it to be FAQ'd so that it will stack, as soon as GW gets around to it. That does not, however, make your arguments correct, and until it is officially fixed, I will play the astropaths as not stacking.

Red_Lives wrote:not exactly,
I brought up an FAQ that showed an example of two of the same ability stacking, which had very similar wording and function.

Where Gaz brought up an unrelated ability in form and function.

Also to me by RAW its clear that the astropaths do stack from just the GW Guard codex.

Yes, TO YOU!
In reality they don't stack.

See what I did there?

How can you claim that two rules that do NOT have identical wording must have the same effect? Just because they Have similar wording is NOT good enough.

I am sorry Gwar! you are wrong on this one.

Your whole argument rests on the idea that the rule is singular unto it's self, therefore no matter how many models are on the table the conditions of said rule are met.

Let's look at the rule:

Whilst the Astropath is alive, you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls. In addition, if any of your units arrive using the outflank rule, you can re-roll the dice used to determine which board edge these sqauds arrives from.

The rule is clearly in the singular tense. Meaning one. While the singular astropath is alive you add 1. Since the condition is singular to the astropath model the ability will apply per model.

You would be correct if the rule was worded something to the effect of "A Imperial Guard force that includes an Astropath..." but that is not how it is worded. The rule is on a per Astropath bases and after that you just follow the conventions of math.

If it were per model, the rule would say per model.
If it would stack, the rule would say it stacks.

As I have pointed out, nowhere in the IG Codex or IG FAQ does it say either way if it stacks or not.

And as Humble As I am, I quote myself:

Gwar! wrote: And it was figured out. The answer is: Both Answers are correct and GW have 7 year old writers. And the 7 year olds are Howler Monkeys. And the Monkeys are French.,

Futrhermore, I am following the "conventions of math". Both astropaths ask for me to add one. I add one. Both Astropaths are now happy as larry. The only reason (and I do mean only) reason anyone argues otherwise is because they want to have their cake and Eat it.

If it were per model, the rule would say per model.

According to the rules of English it does say per model. The rule is written in a singular form, as long as that particular astropath is alive on the table you add +1. The rule is specifically refering to the astropath in a singular state, I.E. referring to the model itself (as all the rules in the 40k rulebook are written in reference to the physical depiction of the unit, I can quote all those rules again if you wish.)

If it would stack, the rule would say it stacks.

The rules don't have to say specifically that it stacks. The rule simply states that as long as that astropath is alive you add 1. Math is math, if you have multiple +1 results you add them together, unless addition has become some other definition that I am not aware of.

As I have pointed out, nowhere in the IG Codex or IG FAQ does it say either way if it stacks or not.

Again, it doesn't have to. It is simple addition, and failing a specific rule we use the rules of Math and English. Unless you are implying we need a rule in the rulebook that tells us to use math!

Futrhermore, I am following the "conventions of math". Both astropaths ask for me to add one. I add one. Both Astropaths are now happy as larry. The only reason (and I do mean only) reason anyone argues otherwise is because they want to have their cake and Eat it.

I personally have no stake in this argument.

You are trying to make an argument by disecting the rule. You have to take the sentence in it's entirety.

P1: As long as the single astropath is alive you add +1 to the die roll.
P2: You are allowed to field multiple Astropaths.
C: You add 1 per Astropath.

The real argument you could make is whether the rule is singular to one astropath model or not. But you cannot remove the reference to add 1 without the context of the rest of the rule.

P1:Astropath 1: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
P2: Astropath 2: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
C: You add 1 as long as the Astropath (1 or 2) is alive.

As I have said COUNTLESS times (as noone is bothering to listen) once you have added one, Both your astopaths special rules have been satisfied. If the rules said for EACH astopath, then it would stack, but it doesn't, so they don't

P1:Astropath 1: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
P2: Astropath 2: As long as the astropath is alive you add 1 to the die roll.
C: You add 1 as long as the Astropath (1 or 2) is alive.

I am sorry, but this is laughable wrong.

As I have said COUNTLESS times (as noone is bothering to listen) once you have added one, Both your astopaths special rules have been satisfied. If the rules said for EACH astopath, then it would stack, but it doesn't, so they don't

No they haven't, because the rule is singular to the one astropath. You have to satisfy both Astropaths special rule.

This is simple, and answer me this. Is there one instance of the rule in use or two?

The rule is worded to be tied to one model. If there are two of said models, you have to satisfy both instances of said rule. Simple.

Oh OK, just dismiss me off as "laughably wrong". And here I was thinking we could have a mature discussion. I guess I was wrong. *Shrug*

I'm done with this thread. I have made my point, I have proven my counter-points wrong, and yet people still insist on refusing to have a mature discussion. I'm out before the lock if you don't mind.

No disrespect to you Gwar!, I felt we where having a mature discussion. If anything, my previous point was in response to your logical outline, not your argument in itself. I apologize for any offense.

I still believe you could have debated me on the issue of the singular stance of the rule or the multiple instances of said rule, but I can understand your desire to stop your personal frustration, just like I did in the Rities of Battle/Weaken Resolve thread.

At the end of the day, you know how people are going to play this.

Painful debate. I don't see where adding one to the die roll result for each astropath would be incorrect though?

Out of curiosity...How does the astropath rule differ from the Autarch rule?

Uhm, Gwar, "You don't get +2 Attacks for having 3 CCW." is incorrect. Ork Dreads get bonus attacks for having 3 CCW. The limit is how many the model can use (2 for infantry) not how many it has.

Also, you are saying that the +1 fullfils a "requirement" for the astropath. I think you are seeing it from the wrong direction. The +1 is an output, not a requirement. In otherwords, the requirement to be fullfilled is that the astropath (THE astropath, not A astropath) is alive. If that is the case, then you must add +1 to the roll.

Were adding +1 to your roll a requirement that could be satisfied by some other factor, it would have to be another output for it to drive, such as "If +1 is not added to your roll, the astropath explodes" or something.

However, I do totally agree with you here that the issue is largely due to GW not having a technical, rules based writer, instead having someone who can kind of get an idea across in prose.

Rangerrob wrote:Out of curiosity...How does the astropath rule differ from the Autarch rule?

1) The astropath rule is found in the IG Codex, the Autarch is found in the Eldar Codex.
2) Read both codex's. The wording is different. Similar, but that is not sufficient to say it is the same.

Wehrkind wrote:Uhm, Gwar, "You don't get +2 Attacks for having 3 CCW." is incorrect. Ork Dreads get bonus attacks for having 3 CCW. The limit is how many the model can use (2 for infantry) not how many it has

My Comment was referring to basic infantry, so I am not incorrect. Furthermore, the rules for DCCW Specifically say they stack/give additional. Astropaths do not have a similar qualifier, hence they do not stack. It honestly is THAT simple yet people still go on about how it's not.

Okay the rules for furious charge do not say it doesn't stack so my Death Company lead by Corbulo is S6 I6 whenever they charge into assault. This is just as valid as two astropaths stacking.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay the rules for furious charge do not say it doesn't stack so my Death Company lead by Corbulo is S6 I6 whenever they charge into assault. This is just as valid as two astropaths stacking.

G

Indeed. Its also the same as Two Waaaagh! banners. They also do not stack. But, C'est la Vie. It's always a case of wanting your cake and eating it too (To Channel Ben Croshaw: A Phrase I have never understood. I mean, what else would you want to do with a cake)

The debate basically comes down to the two different ways of looking at how the astropath rule operates:

1) As a steady state effect. If an astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a general effect created by having astropaths in the field, having more than one astropath deployed doesnt increase the effect that they produce, since they are simply adjusting

2) As a specific bonus to the die roll. If the astropath is alive then +1 is added to the roll. This is a specific bonus that the model is supplying to the die roll, so since the rules allow multiple adjustments to die rolls then each model will add a +1.



There is no need for the rule to tell us whether or not the +1s would stack if it is case 2. If each model adds +1 then the rules would have to specifically tell us that the bonuses do not stack, otherwise we would have to add +1 for each astropath since that is what the RAW would be telling us to do.
If its case 1 then again the rules wouldnt have to tell us anything about stacking since there is only one +1 no matter how many astropaths are on the table.


Personally I would prefer for them not to stack

But Im not so certain that is the case, since the rule isnt crystal clear.

Since we do not have a clear rule either way I would think this probably ends up as a roll off, unless we can somehow determine which case applies.


Using the eldar faq certainly doesnt prove anything, but since it is the closest similar effect it should probably be considered when making any tournement rulings.


The officer of the fleet rule is very similar in wording, so that rule would again seem to hinge on whether or not these effects are a steady state condition.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth that is well presented to show both sides of the debate as I understand them. Here is my take on this (I'm going to refer to your cases in my description):

In case 1 you are not following the wording of the description of the Astropath's ability. As previously discussed in this thread, the ability uses the following wording: "whilst the astropath is alive..." rather than: "whilst an astropath is alive..." This makes the ability specific, which is congruent with case 2 in your post.

The Officer of the fleet uses the same specific language ("whilst the officer of the fleet is alive") which implies that it functions the same way as the Astropath's ability with reguards to whether or not having multiple Officers in the army deducts multiple points from each opposing reserves roll.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Okay the rules for furious charge do not say it doesn't stack so my Death Company lead by Corbulo is S6 I6 whenever they charge into assault. This is just as valid as two astropaths stacking.

G

No, it's not even close to the same thing. In this case, the unit has an ability (Furious Charge). To learn what this ability does we flip to the relevant page and read the descriptor. The special character that grants the ability to the squad is simply redundant; the unit has access to Furious Charge again, which simply refers you to the same ability. You can have ninety special abilities that unlock Furious Charge, but the net effect will simply be to give your unit access to the one special rule.

A more accurate comparison would be Furious Charge and Nemesis Force Weapons. Nemesis Force Weapons as a piece of wargear increase the user's strength by 2. Furious Charge increases the model's strength by 1 while charging. Through simple math this becomes a cumulative +3.

Likewise Go to Ground improves cover saves by 1. Scout camo cloaks improve their cover save by 1. When scouts Go to Ground, their cover save becomes 2+.

So the same with Astropaths. The way the ability is written, 'while the astropath is alive', the bonus is not related to an overarching special rule, like Furious Charge. If it were, it would be written 'while an astropath is alive'. Since it's in the singular, the rule is linked to that specific model and the effects are cumulative dependent on the number of that model you have on the board.

And yet again, you have shown that Two Different things do stack. Woo hoo, that's EXACTLY what I said.

If you say two Astropaths stack, do you say Two instances of FC stack? Or that Two Waaagh banners stack? Why are two SEPARATE instances of FC or Waagh banner any different to two SEPARATE Astropaths?

I'll save you the time. They are not, because neither Dual Astropaths, dual FC or Dual Waaaagh! Stack.

GWAR! You play it how you want. Us who actually play FOR the enjoyment of the game will play it another way. Its clear that most people know that astropath's stack (until GW FAQ's it) and we will continue to play it as such. Since both camps can provide RAW that their side is right. We should just really stop the round and round discussion, noone can prove anyone else wrong, (As the nature of the Aristotle belief system) and both sides have evidence to support their claim, we can only wait for the people at GW to make a FAQ.

Red_Lives wrote:GWAR! You play it how you want. Us who actually play FOR the enjoyment of the game will play it another way. Its clear that most people know that astropath's stack (until GW FAQ's it) and we will continue to play it as such. Since both camps can provide RAW that their side is right. We should just really stop the round and round discussion, noone can prove anyone else wrong, (As the nature of the Aristotle belief system) and both sides have evidence to support their claim, we can only wait for the people at GW to make a FAQ.

Translation: I know I am dead wrong and want to save face by insulting the other side by claiming he is an Unfun git who doesn't play the game to have fun.

Ad Hominem attacks are FUN!

Your comment about you wanting to play for the enjoyment of the game and me not, of course I play for enjoyment. Why else would I play? I have yet to see proof that they Stack, while I have my proof in the codex, (it does not say they do) and have shown multiple times why it doesn't, and have not had to refer to other armies FAQ's for it either.

And that's a continuation of the same sloppy argument that GBF tried to apply. The Waaagh! banner is written in the same way as Furious Charge; a mob containing a Waaagh banner has +1 WS. You can have ninety Waaagh banners and you only get +1 WS because the beneficiary is 'a mob'. To be similar to an astropath, it would have to be written 'a model with a Waaagh banner grants +1 to mob WS'.

Two separate instances of FC or Waaagh Banner are different from two separate Astropaths because both FC and Waaagh Banner simply unlock access to an ability, and that ability grants a flat +1 increase.

Astropaths, on the other hand, link the effect to the model. If the model is alive, the effect is in play. Multiple models create cumulative effect because that's the way it's written. You [Gwar] only have an argument if you completely disregard how the rules are written.

I have yet to see proof that they Stack, while I have my proof in the codex, (it does not say they do) and have shown multiple times why it doesn't, and have not had to refer to other armies FAQ's for it either.

Your 'proof' is based on ignoring the construction of the rules. If you throw out the rules, then yeah, you can prove anything.

So exactly why is it clear that astropaths stack? Because you say that an unrelated FAQ sets some sort of 'precedent'? That's nothing more than your opinion. My opinion is that there is more than a reasonable doubt that they might not stack since there's evidence of two like items NOT stacking. You can go on and on all that you want, but your opinion has no more validity than anyone else's.

Again, the FAQs never say that they're for anything other than the specific case that they're for. The FAQ covering Autarchs is for Autarchs ONLY. They never once say that they're a 'precedent' for anything else nor do they indicate how to use them to set a 'precedent'.

You claim you play for the enjoyment of the game, yet you're trying to cram an unrelated FAQ down our throats as some sort of proof that you're right. Hardly what I call 'enjoyment of the game'.

sourclams wrote:Astropaths, on the other hand, link the effect to the model. If the model is alive, the effect is in play. Multiple models create cumulative effect because that's the way it's written. You [Gwar] only have an argument if you completely disregard how the rules are written.

Yes it links the Effect to the Model, the effect of Adding one to the reserve roll. Nowhere does it say it is for every Astropath, nor does it say it stacks with other astropaths. If you have two on the board, you add one to the reserve, and both Models special rule has been applied, that of Adding one to the reserve roll.

Again, I Am following how the rule is written. You are adding in "for every" into the rule. I on the other hand am following what is laid down in the IG codex.

P.S.: Ghaz, stop agreeing with me, you're starting to scare me! Who are you and what have you done with Ghaz! <==== Another Obligatory Mod Requested Smilie to show that the preceding comment is in good nature and light hearted.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:GWAR! You play it how you want. Us who actually play FOR the enjoyment of the game will play it another way. Its clear that most people know that astropath's stack (until GW FAQ's it) and we will continue to play it as such. Since both camps can provide RAW that their side is right. We should just really stop the round and round discussion, noone can prove anyone else wrong, (As the nature of the Aristotle belief system) and both sides have evidence to support their claim, we can only wait for the people at GW to make a FAQ.

Translation: I know I am dead wrong and want to save face by insulting the other side by claiming he is an Unfun git who doesn't play the game to have fun.

Ad Hominem attacks are FUN!

Your comment about you wanting to play for the enjoyment of the game and me not, of course I play for enjoyment. Why else would I play? I have yet to see proof that they Stack, while I have my proof in the codex, (it does not say they do) and have shown multiple times why it doesn't, and have not had to refer to other armies FAQ's for it either.

Said from the guy who won't let Banshees still strike 1st through cover. You are a stickler for the most minor of minor details. In most clubs said person is usually referred to TFG.

I believe i am right and have evidence to support my claim. (in both Precedent and grammatical usage in the rule, I.E. Singular usage of Astropath)

You believe you are right and have evidence to support your claim.

The debate should be ended and the thread should be locked as we have now begun the pointless attacks on eachother's character.