IG are officially out, and I already have a question!

[DevianID]

OK, so the Astropath and Fleet Officer regimental advisors--is there a reason that they stack? It doesnt say they stack, and while it seems like its obvious they SHOULD stack, what rule lets them stack?

 

Overall, its pretty important if they dont stack, as having 2 models that each say 'the enemy gets -1 to reserve rolls' stacking for a total of -2 to the reserve rolls means that you get reserves on a 6+ on turn 2... so no hope of anything in reserve getting into play early on. Daemon armies will just cry...

 

For precedent, Psychic scream for the tyranids can stack, but toxic miasma -1 ws does not stack.

 

So, to restate, is there a rule or a precedent that allows the IG advisor's '-1 to a roll' to stack without explicitly saying such?

[Cedric]

This has been discussed all since the Guard codex was leaked weeks back.

No consensus has been reached on Warseer, and I seriously dobut we'd be any wiser.

A FAQ should clear it up in a few months.

C:SM was released in October(?) and got FAQed in January.

[Rosicrucian]

An Astropath adds 1 to your reserve rolls, and allows you to reroll which table edge your outflankers arrive on

 

An Officer of the Fleet makes your opponent subtract 1 from his reserve rolls and can force your opponent to reroll which table edge his outflankers arrive on.

 

They never stack because they dont affect the same thing, the Astropath gives you a bonus whilst the Officer of the Fleet gives your opponent a penalty.

[Cedric]

DevianID is referring to when you have 2 of the same kind on the table, Rosicrucian.

Welcome to the forum, btw.

[Seahawk]

Having two of each advisor on the table will add or subtract 2 from the reserve rolls, and here's why.

 

Two models have the same ability - the opponent subtracts 1 from his reserve rolls. These do stack because there is no limiter, such as "Can only be modified once", or "by a total modifier of +/-1", or whatever.

 

They each have another ability - force enemy outflankers to reroll their result. These do not stack because there is a limiter on page 2 of the BRB: No dice can be rerolled more than once, from any source, no matter what. So one of them would mess with enemy outflankers, and the other wouldn't. You'd have two as insurance in case one dies.

 

However, I do see the point of them not stacking, since they don't have an unlimiter either.

 

Toxic Miasma doesn't need it because of the way it is worded: "Any creature being attacked by, or directing its attacks towards, a Tyranid [or 5, my emphasis] with a toxic miasma reduces its WS by 1." It doesn't matter how many are there, as long as it's at least one, it's -1. Not really a precedent.

 

Hijacking thought; since dreadnoughts, sentinels, and war walkers are machines and not creatures, do they still suffer -1 WS?

 

Psychic scream has an unlimiter right in its entry: "...the modifiers are cumulative." A precedent for actually writing out rules. WOW! GW helped us?!

 

Now, the Eldar Autarch is the precedent you should be using. It has no unlimiter or limiter in the codex. In the FAQ, "If an army has two autarchs...the player may choose to add +1, +2, or no bonus to his reserve rolls. So this is a perfect precedent for it to be +/-2 for IG advisors, in whose case it is "must add" or "must subtract" the modifier.

[DevianID]

Well I figured that Autarchs arnt quite the same because they are both 'may' effects.

 

As for psychic scream, it has the 'unlimiter' built in while the advisors do not, which is why I mentioned them--same for the -1 WS on miasma, but miasma has no 'unlimiter' built in and is generally accepted to not stack.

 

The reading against them stacking is that the rule says 'the enemy suffers -1 to reserve rolls;' if you have 2 advisors and tell your opponent to subtract 2, then you did not follow the rule that says you subtract 1 from the reserve rolls. Plus, suffering a -1 and reducing by 1 are the same thing as far as I can see, and it says 'a tyranid' which can be interpreted as singular just like an advisor, thus there would be as much of a reason for 2 tyranids with miasma to reduce WS by 2 (if they are both attacking at the same time) as 2 advisors to minus 2 from reserves.

 

But yeah, while I think advisors do stack, I am looking for a rule which would justify this, or justify why it doesnt stack.

[Seahawk]

Ha, what I gave you wasn't enough? :P

 

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

Telepathic Relay: "Whilst the Astropath is alive, you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls..."

Intercept Reserves: "Whilst the Officer of the Fleet is alive, your opponent must subtract 1 from all of his reserve rolls."

 

All written with exactly the same meaning, excepting the obvious "may" in the Autarch's special. The autarch was ruled as stackable. Why not the latter two?

 

then you did not follow the rule that says you subtract 1 from the reserve rolls

I follow you here. However, the precedent has been set for such a line, when doubly in existence, to mean -2 in this case.

[Lord Humongous]

It seems to me that "Whilst the Officer of the Fleet is alive, your opponent must subtract 1 from all of his reserve rolls" is pretty clearly just -1 no matter how many officers there are. If he's alive, you subtract -1. If another 3 are also alive... well, you subtracted -1, didn't you? So you already followed that rule. If it were meant to be cumulative, there would be some bit about "for each..."

 

Anyhow, no matter how many "masters" you have, there's still only one fleet. Having more guys ordering it around doesn;t make the fleet any more effective at stopping enemy maneuvers.