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.

Except that you're not. The rule says 'whilst the Astropath is alive, you add 1...' If you I have two Astropaths that are alive, and I roll my Reserve Roll, and I add 1 for one Astropath, and I do not add 1 for one Astropath, then I just broke the rules.

You can claim that you're following the rule as it is written, except that you're not; you just ignored half of the rule. You added 1, but you did not do it enough times.

Simply prove my grammar is wrong and I'll happily concede. Hint: your old saw about adding 1 satisfies both Astroapths' rules doesn't work because the indicator is in the singular, not the plural.

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.

I am adding nothing to the rule. You, on the other hand, are ignoring half of it.

Red_Lives wrote: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.

Yeah, I won't let them, because the rules do not let them. The same way the rules do not let me Autowin if I have an Inquisitor, or how the rules don't let me Deploy 97 Rhinos in Dawn of War. If you don't play by the rules to the letter, where does it stop? Eventually you stop playing Warhammer 40k and play HorribleHousehammer 40k.

Red_Lives wrote: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.

My "Belief" as you call it, is based on the actual Rules (something you obviously don't like playing by, as evidenced by your first point)

P.s: Just LOVE the bias by including your argument but not the counter-argument. Thats the way to win things!

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

Big words from someone who has done nothing but throw Personal Attacks about eh?

Sourclaims and I have shown from just the wording in the IG codex that the ability stacks.

You have used the same wording and claimed that it cannot stack.

By RAW we are both right. The problem is that RAW has many interpretations. Both Points are Valid.

I believe you are wrong and have shown evidence to suport this.

You believe that I am wrong and have shown evidence to support this.

The thread should be locked as nothing new can be provided at this point.

Gwar! wrote: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.

Your logic is terrible false, and simplistic:

I will apply your logic to a Tau situation, just for kicks:
Tau Player: "I passed two different Markerlight tests, and have decided to use them both to increase the BS of a Fire Warrior squad by +1"
You: "Well, if you increase their BS by +1 (to BS 4), then you have satisfied both Markerlight requirements"
Tau Player: Commences ass kicking...

Please respond directly to how this situation does not use your logic, and then let me know why it wouldn't apply (since the Markerlight rules don't specify that they stack...)

Tau codex specifically states they are allowed to stack (up to BS 5).
IG codex does not.


Thank you for proving my point.

Would you like to say I am right now?

Gwar! wrote:Tau codex specifically states they are allowed to stack (up to BS 5).
IG codex does not.


Thank you for proving my point.

Would you like to say I am right now?

So they Tau codex proves your point correct about the IG codex?

Now Gwar, you are arguing against your own logic earlier, that different codexes don't apply?

Or would you mind if I used the Tyranid codex for my Tau?

Che-Vito wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Tau codex specifically states they are allowed to stack (up to BS 5).
IG codex does not.


Thank you for proving my point.

Would you like to say I am right now?

So they Tau codex proves your point correct about the IG codex?

Now Gwar, you are arguing against your own logic earlier, that different codexes don't apply?

Or would you mind if I used the Tyranid codex for my Tau?

Ha, i saw that coming a mile away (as i have plaed Tau for years and know the wording of that rule)

public class Astropath{
private boolean astropath1Alive;
private boolean astropath2Alive;
private int reserve;

public int useGwarLogic() {
if(astropath1Alive||astropath2Alive) reserve++;
return reserve;
}

public int useOtherLogic() {
if(astropath1Alive) reserve++;
if(astropath2Alive) reserve++;
return reserve;
}
}

Ok so i only know a little bit of java. But its pretty self explanatory.

The rules say "While THE astropath is alive you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls."
I check one astropath. Is he alive? Yes. Add one. I have satisfied the rules for that astropath. I have not satisfied the rules for the other astropath, as his rule refers to himself.
Check the other astropath. Is he alive? Yes. Add one.

If the rules said "While AN astropath" is alive, Gwar might have a point. If not, well... cumulative is the rules as written.

I will let a player stack the astropaths if I can stack furious charge.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I will let a player stack the astropaths if I can stack furious charge.

G

And Waaagh Banners!

Except stacking Furious Charge is not the same thing. But I don't have my rulebooks here so I won't argue the point on that particular one. A model either has the furious charge rule, or it doesn't. A model can't gain something it already has. You know it doesn't work that way, I know it doesn't work that way, and frankly that part isn't open for interpretation.


The rules here specifically apply to the astropath model. There is no reason, at all, to assume that when is says "The astropath" that it refers to a different astropath. Every single other rule in any book... forget it, that would be 'precedence' and that negates your weak argument so you ignore it. In the English language, "the" is definitive. THE astropath refers to a specific astropath. As opposed to AN, which is indefinite; AN astropath would refer to one of any of a group of astropaths.

If i had two astropaths on the table and I asked you to point to 'the astropath', you would answer 'which one?'. If i asked you to point to 'an' astropath, you could choose which one. I'll even paint them different colors and have a red Astropath and a blue astropath, just so they're easy to tell apart.
The rules for my red astropath say that "if the astropath" (THE referring in this case to the astropath who is in possession of this rule, the red astropath) "is alive then (blah blah)".
Same for the blue astropath. They are separate models, each with their own instance of the astropath rule.
I add 1 to reserves for each.

A red Astropath is still an astropath, no matter what Additional Criteria you are inventing for him.

The rules do not say for each astropath you add one. As I have shown before, the rules can be interpreted as only allowing a maximum of one to be added.

I honestly question your English comprehension skills if you can get that interpretation.

Yes, a red astropath is an astropath.
However, you are suggesting that he is The Blue astropath, which clearly, he is not.

Comparing this to furious charge is an obvious red herring. It doesnt matter how many times a unit has the ability furious charge, if 10 models in the units give the unit the furious charge ability then the unit still only has furious charge. We then go to the rules under furious charge to determine what bonus is applied. It doesnt matter how many times a unit is given the ability to fly, to furious charge, to run, feel no pain etc etc. The models are given an ability that we refer to under the universal special rules which describe how the effect operates.


The astropath question is different however, it is a complete rule in and of itself, and the question is whether or not the astropath rule sets a general condition or if it grants a specific bonus.



It may depend on how we view the game turn as progressing. Do all effects of this sort happen instantaneously at the same moment of the game turn? Or is this a triggered effect by the controlling player as he moves through his turn?


If effects like this are triggered automatically then it any number of astropaths would be setting a field condition for the game, so it would only take effect once.

If effects like this are used by the player then each astropath would be checked and used one at a time, so the effects would have to stack.


There just arent many other effects of this type in the game, so it may be unclear and not possible to be decided at this point. I dont have my eldar codex here atm but if the rule on autarchs is written in the same ambiguous manner then it is possible that the faq there may give us an answer.

Please note that I am using the faq idea NOT to use a codex specific rule in game play with a different codex. This would be using a faq to determine how GW treats a class of rules. It is *possible* that the autarch rule falls into the same class of rule as the astropath rule and if so it could be used to tell us how GW views this CLASS of rules. Of course, some people dont view the faqs as legal rules material so for them this info will be valueless.

At this point tho it looks like we dice for it, or make local house rules since nothing is definitive.


Sliggoth

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/05/bolscon-imperial-guard-q.html

There is starting to be a consensus that you are wrong Gwar. It says while THE astropath is alive add +1 to any of your reserve rules.

Your argument doesnt prove anything at all. If you follow the RAW you must give +1 while that model is alive and +2 if two are alive. Your trying to argue RAI and I havent seen any proof from to you the contrary.

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I will let a player stack the astropaths if I can stack furious charge.

G

And Waaagh Banners!

"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'm self-quoting myself now.

If you ignore English and Math and half of the Telepathic Relay rule, then stacking Furious Charge and Astropaths is the same thing.

An astropath has the ability built in to add +1 to the reserve roll just like DC has furious assault. However Corbulo gives a unit the ability to use furious charge, so no it's not the same. But both examples are just as silly.

G

Whatever the "Consensus" is (protip: 40k Rules != Democracy), I will not admit I am wrong (because the rule can work both ways) until GW Errata it (no an FAQ is not enough).

Grab the popcorn lads.

Gwar! wrote:Whatever your "logical argument" is (protip: 40k Rules != Gwar!'s Dictatorship), I will not admit I am wrong (because I am Gwar and i am always right, see my sig) until GW Errata it (So i can bully people into playing my way for 10 years).

Grab the popcorn lads.

Fixed it for you.

Show me where it says they do not stack, as in, somewhere GW says that it does not stack (remembering that Codex trumps Rule Book), and then I could agree that it does not stack. Codex clearly states to add one for the Astropath, not "you may only add one to your reserve roll" or "you may only subtract one for their reserve roll" for more than one Officer of the Fleet and Astropath. Does it say anything like that? No, in fact it says something quite the opposite by not being that specific.

Gwar! wrote:Whatever the "Consensus" is (protip: 40k Rules != Democracy), I will not admit I am wrong (because the rule can work both ways) until GW Errata it (no an FAQ is not enough).

Grab the popcorn lads.

So, in an actual game where this issue comes up, where the opponent uses sourclams' reasoning, and you use your reasoning, how do you resolve it?

I don't think I've ever actually read how you deal with your rules conflicts in an actual game setting.

Cerine wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Whatever the "Consensus" is (protip: 40k Rules != Democracy), I will not admit I am wrong (because the rule can work both ways) until GW Errata it (no an FAQ is not enough).

Grab the popcorn lads.

So, in an actual game where this issue comes up, where the opponent uses sourclams' reasoning, and you use your reasoning, how do you resolve it?

I don't think I've ever actually read how you deal with your rules conflicts in an actual game setting.

If you are both adults and one of you can compromise, then great.

If not, find different people to play.

Cerine wrote:I don't think I've ever actually read how you deal with your rules conflicts in an actual game setting.

I believe it is addressed in the rulebook. It is the dreaded 'd6 for it!' "rule".

Anyway...



Inching ever so closer...

Fire in the whole.

Travsi, careful. If you don't like the post, attack the post and not the poster. It's a fine line sometimes, but you crossed it.

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

No, we don't. Using other Armies FAQs is the same as using another armies codex.

I hope you don't mind me using ork Boyz in my Space Wolf Army next should we ever play, since that is what you seem to think is allowed to be done.

GWAR, I think you came here with a devil's advocate argument, but stuck around to troll the thread. And using a ruling applied to a common ruleset to rule on a similar situation is the definition of a precedent. So the autarch ruling is a good indication of how GW will rule on this similarly obscure unit, and I think you know this. Would you bet money that GW won't rule the same way? I would, based on the precedent they set with the autarch

apwill4765 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Red_Lives wrote:So until an IG FAQ comes out all we have to go buy is previous FAQs on abilities with similar wording.

No, we don't. Using other Armies FAQs is the same as using another armies codex.

I hope you don't mind me using ork Boyz in my Space Wolf Army next should we ever play, since that is what you seem to think is allowed to be done.

GWAR, I think you came here with a devil's advocate argument, but stuck around to troll the thread. And using a ruling applied to a common ruleset to rule on a similar situation is the definition of a precedent. So the autarch ruling is a good indication of how GW will rule on this similarly obscure unit, and I think you know this. Would you bet money that GW won't rule the same way? I would, based on the precedent they set with the autarch

I we are going to talk precedent with GW and betting, then you may as well throw the deck of cards out the oijaboard. But if you are trying to find coherent reasons for a decision, then precedent is better than Gwaredent. The rule is so clearly written with no if-and-or-buts that there can be no argument about its intent without the writer (in this case GW) making some sort of statement otherwise. The core of this whole debate is players who, or sympathize with, depend upon their reserve rolls passing or their opponent's failing. If it were not such a big deal (say a one in a multi-million situation) I do not think anyone would really care (except on the internet).

Boil it down to the facts and RAW, yes, Atropaths and Officer of the Fleet stack.

RaW they also do not stack.
Therein lies the argument.

In your RAW they do not stack. In math +1 and +1 = +2. It is not even decisive by RAW. RAW can be read to either be +1 fulfills the requirement OR +1 and +1 always = +2.

Toreador wrote:RAW can be read to either be +1 fulfills the requirement OR +1 and +1 always = +2.

Which has been my Point from Post #1