Hive Tyrant reserve bonus

For those of us who haven't been following the two buried arguements about it, I've decided to drag this debate where it belongs!

Hive Tyrants in an army add +1 to the reserve rolls if they take a specific wargear choice. The question is basically weather or not it stacks. According to the Eldar FAQ, Similar automatic bonuses from an autarch stack, according to the IG, Similar bonuses from an astropath do not stack.

The Imperial Guard FAQ is more recent, and is slightly more applicable since it is something that is purchased as an upgrade rather than naturally occuring. My bias is obviously towards the most recent ruling, but I'm curious which we're using in the league.

I don't have a book so quote the writing of the rule so i can maybe argue one way or the other.

I'll re-state my arguments.


Autarch reserve bonuses stack. This is detailed in the FAQ.

Imperial Guard ones do not. This is also detailed in the FAQ.

The Eldar suffer by taking two Autarchs; by taking a second one, they cannot take a Farseer which is a true detriment to the Eldar army (as Seer Councils, especially on bikes, are very powerful). You lose very powerful psyker defence, very powerful psychic abilities, and a very powerful unit in and of itself.

Imperial guard on the other hand... a Company Command Squad with an Astropath is so cheap and the rest of the Imperial Guard HQ choices are so lackluster that they really do not take away much from the Guard army if you take two Astropath CCSs.

Tyranids pay through the nose to obtain +2 to their reserve rolls. Two hive tyrants with Hive Commander are 390 points without any upgrades. In a game of 2 000 points, that's almost 20% of your army right there; obviously fielding this in any smaller points size is immediately too expensive to be viable.

Therefore, I think Tyranids should be able to stack their bonuses because it balances out with a very high price tag, similarily, the Eldar ones would stack because they have something very powerful to lose (Farseers of a sort). Imperial guard... lose nothing.


An interesting note, the rules are worded the same between the Guard and Tyranid (because Cruddance wrote both codices) as opposed to the Eldar one, however this is one full edition between each other and by different authors.

Imperial guard are the only 5th edition example, making them more relevant in my mind.

Also, a note about 'cost'... 390 points is not what you pay for +2 to reserve rolls. It's what you pay for two 4 wound Synapse-giving MC's with WS 8 who go first in Initiative (I 5+Lash Whip) with 5 melee attacks, and have a pair of psychic powers. AND +2 reserve rolls. In addition to all the options they can take on top of that.
The Tyranid Hive Tyrant is a good HQ choice in its own right and one many players take anyways, saying that it's cost is the reason it shouldn't follow the same rules makes no sense to me.

Looking at it objectively, the upgrade that gives you +1 to reserves costs 25 points. The upgrade Imperial guard have costs 30 points. seems fairly similar to me.

Also, just FYI, I have many HQ choices I would like to take with my guard - Primaris Psyker, Allied Inquisitor Lord, Allied GK Hero are all good HQ choices that I have to give up to take platoon command squads.

I firmly believe the reason the Eldar one works and the Imperial guard one doesn't is simply b/c GW changed their mind over time. It's much more likely that they had a change of heart between the time of the Eldar FAQ (How many years ago was that?) and the Guard FAQ than it is that they compared relative costs and said "This rule is written exactly the same as that one but should work differently to balance the unit against other units". If they did that then Ogryn would be mounted on jetbikes for their cost.


On the other hand, I just looked over the Swarmlord, and I'd have no argument to Him and a Hive Tyrant stacking. His reserve bonus is not only called something else, but is worded differently, leading me to beleive that it's not the same thing and therefore stacks(Such is the benefit of Unique Characters).


EDIT: Just thought of one more thing. Tyranids actually have a good USE for reserving, wheras I'll hold that Reserving guard is just silly aside from drop-bombing storm troopers.

Also for those who don't know the ruling
Eldar Wording: Whilst 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)
Guard Wording: Whilst the Astropath is alive, you add 1 to any of your reserve rolls.
Tyranid Wording: Whilst the hive tyrant is alive, you add +1 to your reserve rolls.

Looking at all three side by side, the Tyranid wording has a lot more in common with the guard one than the eldar one.

Hmmm, having a hard time framing how to argue against this. I guess I should start by saying that I don't massively care whether Tyranids can or can't. Out-flanking Genestealers, well, fine. My army won't be there anyway. Go for it.

I think my issue is more with trying to argue your point by rationalizing your own perspective on the rules. So the Tyranids pay a lot of two Hive Tyrants with the reserve rules. So the Eldar can't take a Farseer (and the other advantages therein). You argue you that since both armies are taking some form of handicap, they are thus allowed to gain this particular advantage. Since each army suffers so much from it, then we will let them stack it? On the converse, since the Imp. Guard don't suffer for adding a second Astropath, we don't need to let them stack that benefit. Sorry, in my mind it doesn't fly. That assumes that the rules writers are intentionally granting a hidden benefit to compensate for an intentional short-fall (that may only exist in the eyes of certain observers), but that they aren't willing to explicitly state that in the rules.

I would generally argue that it isn't that the armies would be handicapped. Instead, it is opening different tactical avenues for play. Whether those avenues are the most tactically viable are open to opinion, and this isn't the place for them.

My own personal preference for this situation is to cite the most recent precedent, assume your own issue will likely conform to said recent precedent, and abide by that ruling until we get told differently. This way, you can have a reasonable solution that doesn't require you to somehow peer into Robin Cruddace's cranium and instantly understand that you have hit on the right way to interpret the problem.

So, the most recent precedent is the Imp. Guard codex. In the Imp. Guard codex, they cannot stack the reserve rule. Since this is the most recent precedent for a similar problem, we can abide by that ruling until the issue is specifically addressed by Mr. Yakface in the upcoming Tyranid FAQ. This solution is preferable to referring to a similar precedent from a much older codex that was written for an older iteration of the main rules body.

And hey, maybe I (and others in my camp) will be wrong. Maybe you will be able to. In that instance, good on you.

EDIT: I must agree with Jemal with regards to shifting opinion on the part of GW (though I think it is more likely that they don't want to re-visit old FAQ's until the Codex is updated, rather than balancing the benefit vs. other armies).

but that they aren't willing to explicitly state that in the rules.

This is GW we're talking about. Although their rules are getting a lot better, they're still crap sometimes.

Sorry HC, I'm gonna have to go against you on this one. Rationalising why you can do something because of a handicap comparison is a plain bad argument. I'm with Jim and Terran (sorry i havent taken the time to learn many real names). Follow the most recent FAQ that relates to similar rules.
Eldar = 4th edition
Guard = 5th edition

I would vote "no" until faq'ed. To Jim= the Eldar codex is technically 5th, it was the first codex to use BS's above 5 (which only mattered in 5th. Also, Lash whips only work on models in BtB, not all models, So it is not instant win for the tyrant. I the reason I say no though, is that the last faq to deal with this said no, so I assume this will as well.

All right, I'll concede and use "they don't stack". If the FAQ comes out and says otherwise, cool. My spore army wasn't my major project anyway

What the FAQ, why the FAQ does GW keeping FAQing the FAQing FAQ?!


Yes, it had to be said.