rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A power requires a modifier to be applied.

is not 100% true now is it

Yes, it is. Have evidence otherwise?

cast enfeeble on a vehicle

OhyoutotAllygotmebroomg.yourethefirsttobringthatup.com

How about reading the thread and not repeating the same tires, debunked arguments ad nauseum?

-
That has not been debunked, your blanket statement has.

A power [b]requires a modifier to be applied.[/b]
Enfeeble is cast on a vehicle, nothing is modified, no stat has changed, the power is resolved, there is no modifier applied.
Your statement is false. Claiming that this objection has been debunked is false.

Permission to cast more than one instance of a power is not in of itself permission to have multiple effects.
Pg2 alone is insufficient.

I remain unconvinced by the arguments of either side. Everyone is arguing the fringes of this, where, imo, the answer lies in same vs different still.

No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.

Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.

Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.

The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect

kambien wrote:
You mean pages 3-4 where you do your utmost to avoid it altogether ?
I guess your childish posting means your done now ?

No, I ignored it because (as I believe I said at the time) it wasn't relevant. And it still isn't. Perhaps you'd like to prove that it is? I'd love it if you did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:
Enfeeble is cast on a vehicle, nothing is modified, no stat has changed, the power is resolved, there is no modifier applied.

Untrue. -1T is applied but has no game effect.

Permission to cast more than one instance of a power is not in of itself permission to have multiple effects.
Pg2 alone is insufficient.

It's not page 2 alone.
It's the fact (absolute) that you must resolve the second power. Resolving the second power against a model with a T value must add -1T. Doing otherwise requires citing a rule denying it. No one (ever) when asked has been able to present a rule that denies that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:
The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect

What is the effect? Please answer this question.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.

Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.

The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect

Page 2 states otherwise. We are told -1 twice is -2. Find the denial of this.

FInal chance: page and paragraph, in your next response, or you have conceded the argument. Refusal, dissembling etc will all be treated as concession, and that you are making a HYWPI argument without marking it as such, and you will be reported for trolling and breaking the tenets.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.

Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.

The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect

Page 2 states otherwise. We are told -1 twice is -2. Find the denial of this.

FInal chance: page and paragraph, in your next response, or you have conceded the argument. Refusal, dissembling etc will all be treated as concession, and that you are making a HYWPI argument without marking it as such, and you will be reported for trolling and breaking the tenets.

GRRRRR we are all angry! haha but yea the guys using my reasoning. If you consider the powers with the identical names from different casters as the same, and referring to page 68 along with rigelds reasoning with vehicles, both of the powers are resolved but the second one doesn't have a "game effect". I think everyone is cool with the idea that modifiers stack if the powers are cumulative. You cannot replace the powers name with the modifier though. (enfeeble)≠(-1T, -1S), (enfeeble)--> (-1T,-1S). Modifiers are not a pillar for the pro-stack debate, I see no way that RAW is being broken; you can see it as replacing the old same power with a new same power even though it was cast during the same turn (both were resolved in their individual castings). The main debate lays in the interpretation of "different"

The main debate lays in the interpretation of "different"

No it doesn't, whether or not two castings of a malediction are considered different powers is completely irrelevant to this debate, as nothing in the rulebook states that only different powers can stack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

The main debate lays in the interpretation of "different"

No it doesn't, whether or not two castings of a malediction are considered different powers is completely irrelevant to this debate, as nothing in the rulebook states that only different powers can stack.

With respect, for people who believe that stacking the effects requires spercific permission, it does matter (Though, I believe that has been resolved rather than is still in debate).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.

By "affected" I presume you mean "modified."
P2 tells us that if a stat is altered by, say -1, it is a modifier.
If the vehicles toughness is modified, it must have changed.
After the modifier has been applied (as demanded by the power), what is the vehicles toughness? An actual number would be required, but there isn't one.

Therefore, the power has been fully resolved and has had no-effect.
This is fine, it doesn't break the rules, full resolution does not, in of itself, require an effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.

Convinced by what exactly?

As far as I'm concerned, you can fully resolve as many powers as you like, but, again, that does not necessarily mean there has to be an effect even one which the power demands.
Cast enfeeble at a vehicle as many times as you like, fully resolve them all and ... nothing happens.
The effect, that is, the modifier in this case, is circumstantial.
That's pretty much universal as far as I can tell.

Use something against a unit that is immune to the effect, that something can be fully resolved to no effect at all.
The point here, is why there should/should not be an effect, after full resolution.

I am not convinced by ANY of this.
I think, that those who think there is a clear RAW resolution, are fooling themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Enfeeble is cast on a vehicle, nothing is modified, no stat has changed, the power is resolved, there is no modifier applied.

Untrue. -1T is applied but has no game effect.

Permission to cast more than one instance of a power is not in of itself permission to have multiple effects.
Pg2 alone is insufficient.

It's not page 2 alone.
It's the fact (absolute) that you must resolve the second power. Resolving the second power against a model with a T value must add -1T. Doing otherwise requires citing a rule denying it. No one (ever) when asked has been able to present a rule that denies that.

The -1 modifier was not applied, its literally inapplicable!

Multiple powers can (as I said above) be fully resolved to no-effect. That simply is not an argument here.
The true question is what is and what is not applicable, that still, imo, resides in same vs. different.

I remain unconvinced.

OK, you remain unconvinced, despite the rules on page 2 stating that indeed, -1 + -1 is -2.

Your opinion is noted, please mark your arguments as HYWPI in future, as they do not match the current rules.

Now why would I do that?
Have I said how I would play it?
How do you know it wouldn't match the current rules (as you see them)?

Both sides of this argument have pro's and con's, pg2 is only part of it.

Undefined -1 = Undefined.
It's not literally inapplicable. I'm sorry you think so.
I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it. How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.

 fuusa wrote:
Now why would I do that?
Have I said how I would play it?
How do you know it wouldn't match the current rules (as you see them)?

Both sides of this argument have pro's and con's, pg2 is only part of it.

Pro: page 2 gives permission to cumulatively apply modifiers. -1T is a modifier. 2 -1T is -2T
Con: there are some reminders that different powers stack.

I "know" because I have produced evidence stating such, and the counters lack one vital element - there are no ruels actually stating what the anti-maths just works as it does otherwise side want. They just dont exist.

rigeld2 wrote:
Undefined -1 = Undefined.

A vehicles toughness is not undefined, it has no toughness characteristic at all.
The definition of a vehicles toughness = it does not exist.
Modifying something that does not exist = failure, it can't happen.
Enfeeble demands -1t to be applied, it can't be done, power is resolved, no problem.

rigeld2 wrote:
I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it.

My "regiment?"
What does that even mean here?
Which side am I on?

rigeld2 wrote:
How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.

No.
Enfeeble can be used on a vehicle, umpteen times, the non-existent t stat is never modified/effected/reduced in any way.

You did say this, didn't you???

rigeld2 wrote:
A power requires a modifier to be applied.

So, to paraphrase ...
"Enfeeble requires a modifier to be applied."

All that is necessary to prove that wrong, is one example.
An example being vehicles.
Your statement is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Now why would I do that?
Have I said how I would play it?
How do you know it wouldn't match the current rules (as you see them)?

Both sides of this argument have pro's and con's, pg2 is only part of it.

Pro: page 2 gives permission to cumulatively apply modifiers. -1T is a modifier. 2 -1T is -2T
Con: there are some reminders that different powers stack.

I "know" because I have produced evidence stating such, and the counters lack one vital element - there are no ruels actually stating what the anti-maths just works as it does otherwise side want. They just dont exist.

You "know?"
How about answering the question that I actually asked???

From what I have said here, how would I play it?
Also, why would I agree to your request (to label my arguments hiwpi) when that would be misleading and untrue?

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Undefined -1 = Undefined.

A vehicles toughness is not undefined, it has no toughness characteristic at all.
The definition of a vehicles toughness = it does not exist.
Modifying something that does not exist = failure, it can't happen.
Enfeeble demands -1t to be applied, it can't be done, power is resolved, no problem.

No - you've failed to resolve the power. Is there an option for the -1T to not be applied? Please cite a rule allowing it.

rigeld2 wrote:
I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it.

My "regiment?"
What does that even mean here?
Which side am I on?

Sorry - auto-correct when I misspelled argument. And right now, since you're arguing against me you're on the opposite "side".

rigeld2 wrote:
How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.

No.
Enfeeble can be used on a vehicle, umpteen times, the non-existent t stat is never modified/effected/reduced in any way.

Using your argument it cannot be used on a vehicle because the T cannot be reduced and you must apply that effect.

You did say this, didn't you???

rigeld2 wrote:
A power requires a modifier to be applied.

So, to paraphrase ...
"Enfeeble requires a modifier to be applied."

All that is necessary to prove that wrong, is one example.
An example being vehicles.
Your statement is wrong.

Yes, I did say it. You've brought up an example that I feel is irrelevant. But pretending it's relevant doesn't prove my statement incorrect, it simply proves that your example can't happen.
You have no allowance to alter the T of a vehicle. Therefore you cannot resolve the power, using your argument.
No one has ever cited permission to partially resolve a power - perhaps you'd like to find some?

How do you partial resolve a power ?
it is either resolved or it isn't right ?

rigeld2 wrote:
No - you've failed to resolve the power. Is there an option for the -1T to not be applied? Please cite a rule allowing it.

Rubbish.
The power has been fully resolved, it just has no-effect.
I don't need to cite anything, the onus is on you to prove that a non-existent stat can in any way be modified and if it can't, the game ends (it doesn't).

rigeld2 wrote:
And right now, since you're arguing against me you're on the opposite "side".

That would make me a "no stacking" supporter then?
As I have said, I remain unconvinced, but that doesn't stop me from criticising what I believe to be incorrect, from whichever "side."

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no allowance to alter the T of a vehicle.

That's correct.

rigeld2 wrote:
Therefore you cannot resolve the power, using your argument.

There is no-restriction on what can be targeted by enfeeble, permission exists to use it however you see fit, its effects, however are dependent upon the target.
The target can be whatever you choose, there is no-restriction, including a vehicle. Permission exists to cast it on a vehicle. Enfeeble cannot effect a vehicle, therefore it doesn't.

1. Expend warp charge (done).
2. Declare target, a vehicle (done).
3. Take psychic test (done).
3. Deny the witch (-).
5. Resolve psychic power.
That vehicle has -1 t now, that cannot be applied, the power was successful, the effect however, does not take place (done).
On we go, the power was fully resolved.

There is noting in the rules that suggests this stops the game in an inescapable loop of your imagination.

rigeld2 wrote:
No one has ever cited permission to partially resolve a power - perhaps you'd like to find some?

My pov is clear, that a power can be cast (and resolved, fully), without an effect at the end of it without creating a rules limbo.
I don't need to.

So, let me get this straight, if I cast a psychic power at a legal target and only some of the effects will be applicable, where does this leave us, according to you?

1. Does the power remain unresolved, as some element proves to be impossible (and where does that leave us)?
2. Is the power resolved because at least something functioned?
3. Is the power partially resolved (and where does that leave us)?
4. Other?

Option 1 would be correct, and it would be an illegal use of the power.

And please explain this:
Enfeeble forces -1T as part of its resolution.
You are saying that you cannot apply -1T.
Yet you're also saying the power is fully resolved.
How can it be fully resolved if you cannot apply part of the effect? You've said a lot but I've never (and never will more than likely) cited a rule allowing you to partially resolve a power.

rigeld2 wrote:
Option 1 would be correct, and it would be an illegal use of the power.

Where (in the actual rules) does it say that enfeeble cannot be cast upon a vehicle?
Does it not target an enemy unit, then?
Is an enemy vehicle, not an enemy unit?

rigeld2 wrote:
And please explain this:
Enfeeble forces -1T as part of its resolution.
You are saying that you cannot apply -1T.
Yet you're also saying the power is fully resolved.

You have admitted that -1 t cannot be applied, the rules tell us that it is perfectly permissible to target a vehicle.

[

rigeld2 wrote:
You've said a lot but I've never (and never will more than likely) cited a rule allowing you to partially resolve a power.

No, but you may be getting dangerously close to needing this to be the case to support your argument and you seem not to realise it.


[

rigeld2 wrote:
How can it be fully resolved if you cannot apply part of the effect?

Ok, I have something in mind, but, yet again, just to be clear ... if any one part of a power, cannot be applied to the legitimate target, the power cannot be resolved???
If you legally target an enemy unit and that power cannot be fully resolved, because at least one effect cannot be applicable, does the game stop?
If, by using a power, again on a 100% targetable unit, one effect cannot be applied, is this illegal and therefore you could not actually use the power in the first place?

Precise answers, please.

I have to remember this. If it ever seems that I'd be losing a game, I just need to cast Enfeeble on a vehicle and the game crashes, forcing a tie!

I hate to break a tenant of the forum , but perhaps someone needs to post the actual definition of resolve or look it up themselves , it might clear things up

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Option 1 would be correct, and it would be an illegal use of the power.

Where (in the actual rules) does it say that enfeeble cannot be cast upon a vehicle?
Does it not target an enemy unit, then?
Is an enemy vehicle, not an enemy unit?

It is. But you've attempted to do something which (according to you, not me) you cannot do. That would be illegal.

You have admitted that -1 t cannot be applied, the rules tell us that it is perfectly permissible to target a vehicle.

Which creates an illegal state, meaning that the action is illegal. Remember, this is with your assumption (unsupported by rules) that you cannot apply the -1T.

No, but you may be getting dangerously close to needing this to be the case to support your argument and you seem not to realise it.

If you truly think so you don't understand my argument.

Ok, I have something in mind, but, yet again, just to be clear ... if any one part of a power, cannot be applied to the legitimate target, the power cannot be resolved???

Correct.

If you legally target an enemy unit and that power cannot be fully resolved, because at least one effect cannot be applicable, does the game stop?

It stops just as much as you building a list with no HQ character, or moving a unit 9" instead of 6".

If, by using a power, again on a 100% targetable unit, one effect cannot be applied, is this illegal and therefore you could not actually use the power in the first place?

Correct.

Ok, but I really wanted your opinions, rather than your opinion of mine.

But, again, your view of ...
"Enfeeble cannot be cast at a vehicle because there will be no-effect. As enfeeble demands -1T it cannot be resolved on a vehicle, therefore it cannot be cast at one."
As you said, it would be an illegal use of the power.

Is that what you think?

A bit of a columbo moment.
Does this basic idea (that an ability/power/whatever) cannot be used if an element of it cannot be resolved/used extend to the game as a whole, or is it just psychic powers?

 fuusa wrote:
Ok, but I really wanted your opinions, rather than your opinion of mine.

But, again, your view of ...
"Enfeeble cannot be cast at a vehicle because there will be no-effect. As enfeeble demands -1T it cannot be resolved on a vehicle, therefore it cannot be cast at one."
As you said, it would be an illegal use of the power.

Is that what you think?

A bit of a columbo moment.
Does this basic idea (that an ability/power/whatever) cannot be used if an element of it cannot be resolved/used extend to the game as a whole, or is it just psychic powers?

Context is important. In general, yes it should be applied game-wide unless there's permission to partially resolve.
You've invented this permission - please back it up.

So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?

 Crimson wrote:
So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?

What would be the point of using something on a target if the target ignores all of its effects?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?

What would be the point of using something on a target if the target ignores all of its effects?

The point is that anyone suggesting that casting psychic powers that might not have an actual impact on a model would break the game is so grossly overcommitted to winning the argument that they have abandoned reason.

Think about a psychic power that modifies leadership or strength (like enfeeble). This outrageous theory suggests that casting such a power on an artillery unit would break the game. Ridiculous.

 Crimson wrote:
So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?

Well, yes. Unless you've got some rule allowing you to partially resolve the ability. I've asked for it to be cited before but I've never seen it cited.
Did I miss it?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?

Well, yes. Unless you've got some rule allowing you to partially resolve the ability. I've asked for it to be cited before but I've never seen it cited.
Did I miss it?

Exactly how do you "partial resolve" ?

That's the question. It's being asserted that you can resolve the power while not applying all of its effects. That would be partially resolving the power.

Of course no one has backed that assertion up with rules - just incredulity that did dare point out it's an illegal action.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's the question. It's being asserted that you can resolve the power while not applying all of its effects. That would be partially resolving the power.

Of course no one has backed that assertion up with rules - just incredulity that did dare point out it's an illegal action.

I ask because the definition of resolve conflicts with it being done partial

Agreed. It's not my argument to support, however.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's the question. It's being asserted that you can resolve the power while not applying all of its effects. That would be partially resolving the power.

Of course no one has backed that assertion up with rules - just incredulity that did dare point out it's an illegal action.

Here we go then!

The question was ...
Does this basic idea (that an ability/power/whatever) cannot be used if an element of it cannot be resolved/used extend to the game as a whole, or is it just psychic powers?

rigeld2 wrote:
Context is important. In general, yes it should be applied game-wide unless there's permission to partially resolve.
You've invented this permission - please back it up.

Right so, I have a few examples for you to have a look at so you can say exactly what happens in these situations.

Pg421, pyromancy.
1. I have a psyker with firery form.
He has permission, so he casts it on himself. From this, he gains a save, +2 S and his close combat attacks gain soul blaze.
Can he assault a vehicle?

2. I have a psyker with sunburst.
There are 2 enemy units in range, so he casts it.
It is a nova power and so must hit both enemy units.
One enemy unit is infantry, while the other is a vehicle and so is immune to the effects of blind.
Can he cast the power?
If so, how is this single power resolved???

P419, biomancy.
3. I have a psyker with haemorrage.
There is 1 enemy unit in range and its a vehicle.
If he can cast this, it will result in a toughness test on a target with no toughness.
Can he cast the power?
If so, how is this single power resolved???

I don't have my book with me we I'm going off of memory (and I'm about to get on a cruise so won't be able to give better answers)

1). Yes. If I remember correctly Soul Blaze explains what happens when attacking vehicles.

2). Again, if I remember Blind explains how to handle vehicles.

3). No, he cannot cast the power as he has no valid targets.

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't have my book with me we I'm going off of memory (and I'm about to get on a cruise so won't be able to give better answers)

Seriously, rigeld, you need better answers.

rigeld2 wrote:
1). Yes. If I remember correctly Soul Blaze explains what happens when attacking vehicles.

No it doesn't.
It deals with unsaved wounds, so wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:
2). Again, if I remember Blind explains how to handle vehicles.

Not in the rulebook, but the faq says ...

Page 34 – Special Rules, Blind
Add “Furthermore, any model that does not have an Initiative
characteristic (for example non-walker Vehicles, Fortifications
etc) are unaffected by this special rule.”...after the last
sentence.

So, if you are correct, this cannot be used, you are wrong.
How about hallucination vs. a vehicle ...

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Abandon - I have permission to cast the power twice, and resolve the power as per page 2, if appropriate. Find the denial of permission. Page and paragraph. OR concede your argument is also not based in rules.

1. I don't disagree but it does not provide permission for the power to be cumulative. Your defining the ability to add more as the ability to be cumulative. That is incorrect. Also the power is not resolved per page 2.
2. Denial is not needed without permission being granted.
3. This is funny as your argument has no rules basis.

chillis wrote:I don't understand how this modifier is being used to prove that stacking is legal. To apply the modifier you have to stack... Let's make enfeeble= A, modifier=B and the caster =#.
A1 -->B
A2-->B
If we have B we can not discern whether or not it results from A1, A2, both, or neither. We only know the effects of A1 and A2 and that two instances of A1 (A1+A1) or A2 (A2+A2) cannot happen. It simply leads to the argument of whether or not A1 and A2 are different and able to stack which then leads to the modifiers adding up. The modifiers are not the psychic powers, the psychic powers result in modifiers

This is what I've been trying to tell them for pages now.

rigeld2 wrote:A1 requires a modifier to be applied.
A2 requires a modifier to be applied.

They both require a modifier to be applied for the power to be resolved. How are you resolving the power and not applying a relevant modifier?

This is the kind of thing that makes me think you don't entirely have the concept of cumulative vs non-cumulative down. A's are not permitted to act cumulatively. No matter how many you add, there is only one A.

When you resolve A2, which is not cumulative with A1, the part of the effect that matters here is that A becomes 'in effect' on the target. The question I have been posing, which is being ignored, is how many A's are in effect in the target? If you say two, please explain how you got there non-cumulatively.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.

Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.

The part in bold. It make no sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:OK, you remain unconvinced, despite the rules on page 2 stating that indeed, -1 + -1 is -2.

Your opinion is noted, please mark your arguments as HYWPI in future, as they do not match the current rules.

I think there is a conceptual difference in how these powers work that is not allowing progress. Blessing and Maledictions "...unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn." This tell me that the power becomes active on the target and is backed by the wording of the BRB powers themselves all stating "Whilst the power is in effect..." Now a Blessing or Malediction being 'in effect' is itself an effect of the psychic power as well as the cause of the powers end effects (stat modifiers, moral checks, etc). So a successful use of the powers only direct effect is that the power becomes "in effect" and the rules for the power tell you what happens while it is sustained.

Are we agreed so far?

I'm saying without permission to act cumulatively you can never have more than one 'in effect' at a time ...and before you say again 'but I can resolve it more than once' there is a large difference between how many times you're allowed to use a power on a target and how many of uses of that power are going to have added effect.

rigeld2 wrote:Undefined -1 = Undefined.
It's not literally inapplicable. I'm sorry you think so.
I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it. How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.

Except you are allowed to use Enfeeble on a vehicle.

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles."

..or are you simply stating it will have no effect at all? If not, why not? There is still the matter of treating all terrain as difficult. If as you claim, the power cannot be resolved why would they lead us to game-breaking mechanics? There are other lines of thought on this than your own and where things can be interpreted differently in reasonable and logical ways where one line takes us to game breaking unplayable mechanics and the other leads us to a working rule set should not the choice be obvious?

rigeld2 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Undefined -1 = Undefined.

A vehicles toughness is not undefined, it has no toughness characteristic at all.
The definition of a vehicles toughness = it does not exist.
Modifying something that does not exist = failure, it can't happen.
Enfeeble demands -1t to be applied, it can't be done, power is resolved, no problem.

No - you've failed to resolve the power. Is there an option for the -1T to not be applied? Please cite a rule allowing it.

rigeld2 wrote:
I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it.

My "regiment?"
What does that even mean here?
Which side am I on?

Sorry - auto-correct when I misspelled argument. And right now, since you're arguing against me you're on the opposite "side".

rigeld2 wrote:
How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.

No.
Enfeeble can be used on a vehicle, umpteen times, the non-existent t stat is never modified/effected/reduced in any way.

Using your argument it cannot be used on a vehicle because the T cannot be reduced and you must apply that effect.

You did say this, didn't you???

rigeld2 wrote:
A power requires a modifier to be applied.

So, to paraphrase ...
"Enfeeble requires a modifier to be applied."

All that is necessary to prove that wrong, is one example.
An example being vehicles.
Your statement is wrong.

Yes, I did say it. You've brought up an example that I feel is irrelevant. But pretending it's relevant doesn't prove my statement incorrect, it simply proves that your example can't happen.
You have no allowance to alter the T of a vehicle. Therefore you cannot resolve the power, using your argument.
No one has ever cited permission to partially resolve a power - perhaps you'd like to find some?

So you are dead set that they either intentionally or through complete incompetence allow what they plainly tell us we can do to break the game and are unwilling to adjust what you consider 'resolution'.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?

Well, yes. Unless you've got some rule allowing you to partially resolve the ability. I've asked for it to be cited before but I've never seen it cited.
Did I miss it?

Again

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles." FAQ - page 7

Yes, you can use it.

rigeld2 wrote:Agreed. It's not my argument to support, however.

It is your version of someone else's argument. Since it has been modified and does not agree with the original you will indeed have to support it or admit it was a vain attempt to discredit the argument you otherwise have no answer for.

 Abandon wrote:

Except you are allowed to use Enfeeble on a vehicle.

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles."

Abandon, you horrible horrible man!
I've been setting that up for ages now!

Of course rigeld is wrong and his squirming in order to avoid admitting it has painted him into this corner.
Hopefully that will settle this portion of the argument (though somehow I doubt it) and it can move on through this rigeld-inflicted impasse.

As I said before though, I am still undecided.
That said, my next criticism will be for the "no-stacking" lobby.
Very late or early here though, back to bed.

 Abandon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Abandon - I have permission to cast the power twice, and resolve the power as per page 2, if appropriate. Find the denial of permission. Page and paragraph. OR concede your argument is also not based in rules.

1. I don't disagree but it does not provide permission for the power to be cumulative. Your defining the ability to add more as the ability to be cumulative. That is incorrect. Also the power is not resolved per page 2.
2. Denial is not needed without permission being granted.
3. This is funny as your argument has no rules basis.

chillis wrote:I don't understand how this modifier is being used to prove that stacking is legal. To apply the modifier you have to stack... Let's make enfeeble= A, modifier=B and the caster =#.
A1 -->B
A2-->B
If we have B we can not discern whether or not it results from A1, A2, both, or neither. We only know the effects of A1 and A2 and that two instances of A1 (A1+A1) or A2 (A2+A2) cannot happen. It simply leads to the argument of whether or not A1 and A2 are different and able to stack which then leads to the modifiers adding up. The modifiers are not the psychic powers, the psychic powers result in modifiers

This is what I've been trying to tell them for pages now.

Yet, whenever I say a word against page 2's irrelevance and the importance of page 68 I'm seen as irrelevant to the debate... I see this thread as HYWPI incentive instead of open-mindedness.

Abandon - I have permission to resolve each power in turn. There is nothing stating the powers themselves need to accumulate

I cast Enfeeble on the unit. I cast it again. I resolve both, getting -2

Pewrmission was granted, no denial has ever been found by you, and therefore your argument fails.

I said this hundreds of times by now: if 'this power' refers to the power in general they do not stack. You can have as many Enfeebles in effect on the unit as you like, and they do not stack.
So the RAW is inconclusive, there's no getting around that.

You have said it, and people have disagreed with you. So continuing to repeat it, with no new evidnce on your side, isnt helpful

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have said it, and people have disagreed with you. So continuing to repeat it, with no new evidnce on your side, isnt helpful

Stop pushing your HYWPI as RAW, seriously. You have absolutely no rules backing your reading of 'this power', none. Yet you pretend RAW is on your side and demands rules citation from others, while you have none. P.2 has feth all to do with this part of the rules, so no point bringing that up. Note how I am not claiming that RAW supports my reading, merely that RAW is unclear. So either provide rules citation that clearly states that 'this power' in power descriptions refers to individual instance of the power rather than the power in general, or get down from that RAW high horse.

 chillis wrote:
[
Yet, whenever I say a word against page 2's irrelevance and the importance of page 68 I'm seen as irrelevant to the debate... I see this thread as HYWPI incentive instead of open-mindedness.

Personally I think you're right.
Not necessarily about the final outcome (no stacking), but about the way we get to either prove p2's relevance or irrelevance here.

This power, same and different need to be sorted. Once that's done (if possible), we will understand what part p2 plays, if any.

@nosferatu, do you concede the point that -1T cannot be applied to a vehicle as it has no-toughness to modify and that this is perfectly acceptable when resolving a power?
Your earlier position is untenable and we really need to push on with this debate now that stumbling block is thoroughly debunked?

Crimson - again, I disagree with your reading that it is unclear, and have provided reasons as to why. Your continued disparaging comments are tiresome, however.

fuusa - -1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.

You also might have me confused with rigeld.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have said it, and people have disagreed with you. So continuing to repeat it, with no new evidnce on your side, isnt helpful

Stop pushing your HYWPI as RAW, seriously. You have absolutely no rules backing your reading of 'this power', none. Yet you pretend RAW is on your side and demands rules citation from others, while you have none. P.2 has feth all to do with this part of the rules, so no point bringing that up. Note how I am not claiming that RAW supports my reading, merely that RAW is unclear. So either provide rules citation that clearly states that 'this power' in power descriptions refers to individual instance of the power rather than the power in general, or get down from that RAW high horse.

Sympathise, the style of debate can be annoying and seen as entirely arrogant, but to be fair this bit of your view is yet to be proven.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - again, I disagree with your reading that it is unclear, and have provided reasons as to why.

You have not provided any reasonable rules backing for you position. Your position is based on your assumption on what it means. (As is mine, but I don't claim my assumption is RAW.)

Your continued disparaging comments are tiresome, however.

How awful for you. In any case, I find you constant appeals to tenets of the forum while you blatantly fail to follow them your self amusing. However, the quality of the discussion might be improved if you stopped doing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

Sympathise, the style of debate can be annoying and seen as entirely arrogant, but to be fair this bit of your view is yet to be proven.

Page 2. tells us how to treat multiple modifiers, that much is clear. However, if 'this power' in power descriptions refer to the power in general, rather than individual instance of the power, then we do not have multiple modifiers in the first place. Instead we basically have situation where a unit affected by Enfeeble suffers -1 to S and T, but that do not change if you have multiple Enfeebles. The unit is still either affected by Enfeeble or is it not, the state of being affected is binary.

For the page 2. to come to play in the first place 'this power' must refer to individual instances of the power, and then you could apply effects to each and use p 2. to combine them.

 Crimson wrote:
I said this hundreds of times by now: if 'this power' refers to the power in general they do not stack. You can have as many Enfeebles in effect on the unit as you like, and they do not stack.
So the RAW is inconclusive, there's no getting around that.

On thing I'd like to ask, Crimson, is if Enfeeble and other maledictions didn't have the ambiguous "this power" wording, would you say that they're stackable? In other words, do you think that the basic psychic power rules support maledictions being able to stack?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

On thing I'd like to ask, Crimson, is if Enfeeble and other maledictions didn't have the ambiguous "this power" wording, would you say that they're stackable? In other words, do you think that the basic psychic power rules support maledictions being able to stack?

'Different powers' wording and some powers specifically saying that they stack while others don't would still make RAI somewhat muddy, but RAW case for stacking would be much stronger then, yes.

It is the RAW being properly unclear (due 'this power' wording) combined with the two other things I mentioned (that point towards RAI of non-stacking) that leads me to conclude that they should not to stack.

Crimson - actually being polite isnt a tenet of this subforum, but a rule of the whole site. You fail to follow that.

I have provided rules backing for my argument, as per the tenets. You instead claim ambiguity, and claim "RAI" backing despite the explicit no-stack for special rules obliterating that as an argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You also might have me confused with rigeld.

No, you said the T modifier applies to a non-existent characteristic, I don't recall you arguing the rest of the point.
If I am confusing you and rigeld, that means that you are off on a cruise that will be hit by a torpedo, sorry about that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
fuusa - -1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.

No stat = no modifier.

P3.
Vehicle characteristics, "... vehicles have many different rules and their OWN set of characteristics. ... described in the vehicles section (see P70)."
Emphasis mine.

P70.
Listed are bs, av, hp,and type.

There is no T stat at all, it is not undefined, it has no value or use.
It cannot be modified. A modifier cannot be applied to it.

 Crimson wrote:

Page 2. tells us how to treat multiple modifiers, that much is clear. However, if 'this power' in power descriptions refer to the power in general, rather than individual instance of the power, then we do not have multiple modifiers in the first place. Instead we basically have situation where a unit affected by Enfeeble suffers -1 to S and T, but that do not change if you have multiple Enfeebles. The unit is still either affected by Enfeeble or is it not, the state of being affected is binary.

For the page 2. to come to play in the first place 'this power' must refer to individual instances of the power, and then you could apply effects to each and use p 2. to combine them.

Yes, agreed, but that debate (the relevant one) has been sidelined and should be the main focus.

There is no listed T stat; meaning it is undefined. It was successfully modified.

-1and -1 is -2T. Done. Seriously.

You cannot be serious!
If it's all as simple as you claim, special rules would work that way too, but they don't = P2 is not the be all and end all (which you have previously agreed to).
Or are you back-sliding on that?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - actually being polite isnt a tenet of this subforum, but a rule of the whole site. You fail to follow that.

Well, I'm not the one who constantly makes this personal, threatens to report others for imagined offences and calls others annoying.

I have provided rules backing for my argument, as per the tenets.

No you haven't. But please refresh my memory and tell me what rule you think shows that your reading is the only possible correct interpretation.

You instead claim ambiguity, and claim "RAI" backing despite the explicit no-stack for special rules obliterating that as an argument.

It doesn't obliterate it. (But it is true that if psychic powers had similar wording as special rules, then there would be no room for ambiguity.) Writing 'different' when you mean 'all' is not something a sensible person would do. It is an exception that proves the rule, just like the one in the fall back section relating to models moving through each other.

 fuusa wrote:
You cannot be serious!
If it's all as simple as you claim, special rules would work that way too, but they don't = P2 is not the be all and end all (which you have previously agreed to).
Or are you back-sliding on that?

Special rules WOULD work that way - except they have an EXPLICIT statement saying otherwise

Found the explicit statement here? Given you have indeed claimed they are similar, failure to find suhc aan explicit statement would mean "would work that way to" can be applied to psychic powers.

So, found some denial?

Crimson - it would beworthwhile for you to go back to your earlier, very hostile posts and refresh your memory. Your personal attacks are very well documented here. Ignore.

Well that's nice. I assume this means Nos has conceded that there is no rule that says 'this power' refers to individual casting of the power.

Assume whatever you like, you woudl be wrong, the arguments have already been presented as to why you are wrong, and you havebnt rebutted with anything meaningful.

Just more insults and putting words in other peoples mouths. Classy.

I have asked you multiple times to clarify your position, and you have refused to do so. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks that your presentation of your case is lacking. And I did not insult you.

Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

Perhaps you should review more than your own posts.
Edit: also I care nto one jot how many believe my position lacking, similarly a number find your position, and ability to paint others negatively when they disagree with you, lacking merit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.

It is not that a vehicle's T stat is undefined - a vehicle doesn't have a T stat, so it can never be modified. If something doesn't have a brain, like a tree, you wouldn't suggest that the tree's IQ is 'undefined.'

Rapture wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.

It is not that a vehicle's T stat is undefined - a vehicle doesn't have a T stat, so it can never be modified. If something doesn't have a brain, like a tree, you wouldn't suggest that the tree's IQ is 'undefined.'

Bad example, as there are comparitive Intelligence Quotients for vegetation.

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

No I didn't. And for the record, I re-read every one of your posts in this bloody thread. You have absolutely no rules backing for your interpretation of 'this power' and are arguing HYWPI as RAW, being in blatant violation of those tenets you love to pummel others with.

 fuusa wrote:

 chillis wrote:
[
Yet, whenever I say a word against page 2's irrelevance and the importance of page 68 I'm seen as irrelevant to the debate... I see this thread as HYWPI incentive instead of open-mindedness.

Personally I think you're right.
Not necessarily about the final outcome (no stacking), but about the way we get to either prove p2's relevance or irrelevance here.

This power, same and different need to be sorted. Once that's done (if possible), we will understand what part p2 plays, if any.

@nosferatu, do you concede the point that -1T cannot be applied to a vehicle as it has no-toughness to modify and that this is perfectly acceptable when resolving a power?
Your earlier position is untenable and we really need to push on with this debate now that stumbling block is thoroughly debunked?

Sorry if I portrayed myself as anti-stacking. I'm undecided in the manner because I can't see any definite evidence for the wording to mean something specifically. I just don't support the use of page 2, or the fact that its the main debate, to prove stacking of powers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

Perhaps you should review more than your own posts.
Edit: also I care nto one jot how many believe my position lacking, similarly a number find your position, and ability to paint others negatively when they disagree with you, lacking merit.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

Just curious, how will you guys actually play it, as so far every game of 6th I have played allows this stacking?

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

Perhaps you should review more than your own posts.
Edit: also I care nto one jot how many believe my position lacking, similarly a number find your position, and ability to paint others negatively when they disagree with you, lacking merit.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

That's actually not correct, as the BRB defines the lower save as better/improved.

Adding one or two to a save improves the save and as such lowers the save from 5 to 3 by modifying it by +2

"unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+." (P. 2)

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

Perhaps you should review more than your own posts.
Edit: also I care nto one jot how many believe my position lacking, similarly a number find your position, and ability to paint others negatively when they disagree with you, lacking merit.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

Ah, this old argument of yours again, one that was disproved every time you raised it. No, 5+2 is not 7 when dealing with saves, because it talks about improving, and we know, as in literally KNOW, that that would be the opposite of improving it.

Keep spouting this argument, as many times as you like, it will get knocked back every time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

Perhaps you should review more than your own posts.
Edit: also I care nto one jot how many believe my position lacking, similarly a number find your position, and ability to paint others negatively when they disagree with you, lacking merit.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

That's actually not correct, as the BRB defines the lower save as better/improved.

Adding one or two to a save improves the save and as such lowers the save from 5 to 3 by modifying it by +2

"unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+." (P. 2)

what does that have to do with the math? Where is this inverse math explained on pg 2? That's quite the HIWPI assumption you're making there. where on pg 2 does it indicate anything other that 5+2=7? When it even states you can affect a characteristic negatively by adding to it. We have a value of 5, your assuming +2 means to make it better, because nothing on pg 91 says improve or make better.

So first you need the rules from the proper section, which needs to grant you 2 modifiers before you can use pg 2 to do the math right?

What doe that have to do with -1 and -1 not equalling -2?

Do you have a point, or is this more of your trolling?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What doe that have to do with -1 and -1 not equalling -2?

Do you have a point, or is this more of your trolling?

if 5+2 =\= 7, because rules trump math. then -1 + -1 =\= -2. Especially when the rules only grant a single -1.

edit
Oh and I love how you criticize others for violating the tenants, yet you think it's ok for you to do so.
why don't you correct yourself here:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - actually being polite isnt a tenet of this subforum, but a rule of the whole site. You fail to follow that.

so accusing people of trolling is polite now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey nos what do you think the context of this line is in regards to the rest of the psykers section?

under resolving power
"unless otherwise stated the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"

"tenets"

The context is exactly what it states - in this case, contextually it is a reminder.

But you know that - we've been here before. You have no argument against that, you just repeat it hoping others will believe it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"tenets"

The context is exactly what it states - in this case, contextually it is a reminder.

But you know that - we've been here before. You have no argument against that, you just repeat it hoping others will believe it.

Don't apply your faulty logic onto me. That looks like your entire methodology in all of these rules threads.

It's a reminder? lol. It's a rule under resolving powers. But whatever you play it however you like.

Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

contextually the denial under special rules applies to psychic powers as well.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

contextually the denial under special rules applies to psychic powers as well.

How? Last I checked, Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

contextually the denial under special rules applies to psychic powers as well.

How? Last I checked, Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules.

pg 2, what 2 things can modify characteristics? SR's & wargear. Either enfeeble is a SR as a ongoing effect, or it doesn't modify the characteristic.

pg 32, you have the list of SR's, and are told there are others, as in any ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. We are also told models might gain special rules as the result of a psychic power. Like being in open terrain and having to treat it as difficult.

Then we have the psykers section which goes out of its way to make a point that different powers are cumulative. the idea of only different psychic powers stacking is also supported by the newer codexes that specifically state when one can stack with itself.

If each enfeeble was it's own different power, than could a psyker with 3 warp charges cast 3 enfeebles? so enfeeble is the same as enfeeble.
also supported by pg 418 where different psykers can have the same powers.

There is a definite dichotomy set up for same power & different powers based on the name of the power alone. With a rule to allow different ones to be cumulative and 2 more notes to support that rule.

contextually and RAI, only different psychic powers stack.

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2, what 2 things can modify characteristics? SR's & wargear. Either enfeeble is a SR as a ongoing effect, or it doesn't modify the characteristic.

I don't see anything saying only wargear or special rules can modify characteristics. If it said "Only certain pieces of wargear or special rules..." then you might have an argument there.

pg 32, you have the list of SR's, and are told there are others, as in any ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. We are also told models might gain special rules as the result of a psychic power. Like being in open terrain and having to treat it as difficult.

So common special rules are listed starting on pages 32-43 of the rulebook. I don't see "Psychic Powers" listed there. Furthermore, I do not see "Psychic Powers" listed as a special rule under Hive Tyrants.

Then we have the psykers section which goes out of its way to make a point that different powers are cumulative. the idea of only different psychic powers stacking is also supported by the newer codexes that specifically state when one can stack with itself.

Right, different powers can stack. As has been pointed out the fact that different powers can stack does not mean the same power cannot stack. Unless you have a rule saying otherwise?

If each enfeeble was it's own different power, than could a psyker with 3 warp charges cast 3 enfeebles? so enfeeble is the same as enfeeble.
also supported by pg 418 where different psykers can have the same powers.

Which has nothing to do with Psychic Powers being special rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2, what 2 things can modify characteristics? SR's & wargear. Either enfeeble is a SR as a ongoing effect, or it doesn't modify the characteristic.

I don't see anything saying only wargear or special rules can modify characteristics. If it said "Only certain pieces of wargear or special rules..." then you might have an argument there.

The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

So you're objection is "it doesn't say I can't"?

So were left with RAW:

1) enfeeble can not modify characteristics as it's not a special rule.

or

2) Enfeeble is a special rule so it can modify characteristics which means it is also bound by the limitations of pg 32.

I say 2 makes the most sense.

Ok so bickering aside, as I asked before.
How will you guys actually play it, as every 6th game I.have played allows stacking

 Formosa wrote:
Ok so bickering aside, as I asked before.
How will you guys actually play it, as every 6th game I.have played allows stacking

look for the poll, it was 51% no stacking, 49% yes they stack.

so it really comes down to who you're playing with or what the TO says.

If it actually ever comes up in one of my games, I'll tell my opponent "no, they don't stack"

I'd definitely play it as non-stacking.

Wow pretty much even then, Defo needs an faq

sirlynchmob wrote:

The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

So you're objection is "it doesn't say I can't"?

So were left with RAW:

1) enfeeble can not modify characteristics as it's not a special rule.

or

2) Enfeeble is a special rule so it can modify characteristics which means it is also bound by the limitations of pg 32.

I say 2 makes the most sense.

Seems reasonable to me.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

You know what else can modify characteristics and is not a special rule or piece of wargear? Psychic Powers.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

You know what else can modify characteristics and is not a special rule or piece of wargear? Psychic Powers.

You know what has permission to bend or break the main rules? Special rules. do you know what doesn't have that permission? Psychic powers.

so units under enfeeble don't have to treat open terrain as difficult right?

Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

 Happyjew wrote:
Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

I said psychic powers can modify characteristics because they are special rules.

Hey you called maledictions special rules. Thanks for agreeing with me. Welcome to the no stacking side.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

I said psychic powers can modify characteristics because they are special rules.

Hey you called maledictions special rules. Thanks for agreeing with me. Welcome to the no stacking side.

Where did I say Maledictions are special rules? I said they can modify characteristics (even though they are not wargear or special rules).

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

I said psychic powers can modify characteristics because they are special rules.

Hey you called maledictions special rules. Thanks for agreeing with me. Welcome to the no stacking side.

Where did I say Maledictions are special rules? I said they can modify characteristics (even though they are not wargear or special rules).

I bolded & underlined the part where you said special rules. I congratulate you, I think you found the final nail to put an end to the idea that they stack.

Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

 grendel083 wrote:
Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

It's the same thing that's on pg 32, models get special rules as the result of psychic powers.

so the enfeeble special rule is -1 T & difficult terrain.

so as that is the special rule granted from the psychic power it doesn't stack with itself as per the rules on pg 32.

It's not even slightly the same thing.
If it grants a special rule, then the special rule must abide by the special rules rule. Not the whole power.

 grendel083 wrote:
It's not even slightly the same thing.
If it grants a special rule, then the special rule must abide by the special rules rule. Not the whole power.

So whilst this (singular) power is in effect, you're saying you can treat 1/2 the power cumulatively, and the other 1/2 as non cumulative?

and that makes sense to you?

Let's try another example. I have a piece of wargear that grants stealth and Hit & Ruin. The same model has a piece of wargear that grants stealth and shrouded. Do I benefit from both? Why or why not?

 Happyjew wrote:
Let's try another example. I have a piece of wargear that grants stealth and Hit & Ruin. The same model has a piece of wargear that grants stealth and shrouded. Do I benefit from both? Why or why not?

You'd just get the 1 stealth based on pg 32. are you suggesting you should have 2 stealth, because +1 +1 = +2?

Given that USR's can grant USR's and other special rules it seems that the psyker USR would grant the special rules pertaining to psychic powers. As such they are bound by the same rules.

As the rule states that only different powers may stack and it's obvious that the same psyker cannot cast the same power twice there are only two interpretations. Either different means different castings of any power including the same named power or different powers of different names.

As given the same payker cannot cast the same power twice the former interpretation is redundant. The latter becomes less of a leap od logic and makes more sense given that context.

Add to this many 6th edition powers have explicit written permission to stack while others do not.

So either they are allowed to stack and the redundant interpretation is correct with redundant reminders on inly some psychic powers or they are not allowed to stack unless they are a different named power or have explicit permission to stack.

Given all this and the lack of convincing argument otherwise I'm inclined to say they are not allowed to stack unless they are different named powers or have explicit permission to stack.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Let's try another example. I have a piece of wargear that grants stealth and Hit & Ruin. The same model has a piece of wargear that grants stealth and shrouded. Do I benefit from both? Why or why not?

You'd just get the 1 stealth based on pg 32. are you suggesting you should have 2 stealth, because +1 +1 = +2?

Not at all, because Stealth (unlike Psychic Powers) is a special rule and per page 32 cannot stack with itself. However, would I have:
a) Stealth and Shrouded
b) Stealth and Hit & Run
c) Stealth, Shrouded, Hit & Run

sirlynchmob wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
It's not even slightly the same thing.
If it grants a special rule, then the special rule must abide by the special rules rule. Not the whole power.

So whilst this (singular) power is in effect, you're saying you can treat 1/2 the power cumulatively, and the other 1/2 as non cumulative?

and that makes sense to you?

That singular power can have multiple effects.
It can apply both modifiers and grant special rules.
Yes it makes sense, makes a lot of sense.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Let's try another example. I have a piece of wargear that grants stealth and Hit & Ruin. The same model has a piece of wargear that grants stealth and shrouded. Do I benefit from both? Why or why not?

You'd just get the 1 stealth based on pg 32. are you suggesting you should have 2 stealth, because +1 +1 = +2?

Not at all, because Stealth (unlike Psychic Powers) is a special rule and per page 32 cannot stack with itself. However, would I have:
a) Stealth and Shrouded
b) Stealth and Hit & Run
c) Stealth, Shrouded, Hit & Run

C obviously, but that is not an apt comparison. Going with stealth though is stealth the same as or different from stealth (ruins) Since they have different names do they get +1 cover from stealth and +1 cover for being in a ruin? 1+1=2 after all. one's a SR, the other is a warlord trait how much more different can you get?

If we don't accept that logic with stealth why accept it for enfeeble?

enfeeble does 2 things as part of 1 power, it doesn't grant two different things. It grants A(-1TS) AND B(DT) So a second enfeeble would be what exactly?

AABB? but B is definitely a special rule which seems to be agreed to by both sides so it doesn't stack with itself. so then;
AAB? that doesn't look right, it either stacks or it doesn't, not just 1/2.
AB? It's just 1 power that while in effect does 2 things, and Since it is granting a SR, it doesn't stack with itself. It's granting the enfeeble special rule that does just AB

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Let's try another example. I have a piece of wargear that grants stealth and Hit & Ruin. The same model has a piece of wargear that grants stealth and shrouded. Do I benefit from both? Why or why not?

You'd just get the 1 stealth based on pg 32. are you suggesting you should have 2 stealth, because +1 +1 = +2?

Not at all, because Stealth (unlike Psychic Powers) is a special rule and per page 32 cannot stack with itself. However, would I have:
a) Stealth and Shrouded
b) Stealth and Hit & Run
c) Stealth, Shrouded, Hit & Run

C obviously, but that is not an apt comparison. Going with stealth though is stealth the same as or different from stealth (ruins) Since they have different names do they get +1 cover from stealth and +1 cover for being in a ruin? 1+1=2 after all. one's a SR, the other is a warlord trait how much more different can you get?

If we don't accept that logic with stealth why accept it for enfeeble?

enfeeble does 2 things as part of 1 power, it doesn't grant two different things. It grants A(-1TS) AND B(DT) So a second enfeeble would be what exactly?

AABB? but B is definitely a special rule which seems to be agreed to by both sides so it doesn't stack with itself. so then;
AAB? that doesn't look right, it either stacks or it doesn't, not just 1/2.
AB? It's just 1 power that while in effect does 2 things, and Since it is granting a SR, it doesn't stack with itself. It's granting the enfeeble special rule that does just AB

You know what, forget my whole wargear thing. I completely forgot where I was going with it.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Let's try another example. I have a piece of wargear that grants stealth and Hit & Ruin. The same model has a piece of wargear that grants stealth and shrouded. Do I benefit from both? Why or why not?

You'd just get the 1 stealth based on pg 32. are you suggesting you should have 2 stealth, because +1 +1 = +2?

Not at all, because Stealth (unlike Psychic Powers) is a special rule and per page 32 cannot stack with itself. However, would I have:
a) Stealth and Shrouded
b) Stealth and Hit & Run
c) Stealth, Shrouded, Hit & Run

C obviously, but that is not an apt comparison. Going with stealth though is stealth the same as or different from stealth (ruins) Since they have different names do they get +1 cover from stealth and +1 cover for being in a ruin? 1+1=2 after all. one's a SR, the other is a warlord trait how much more different can you get?

If we don't accept that logic with stealth why accept it for enfeeble?

enfeeble does 2 things as part of 1 power, it doesn't grant two different things. It grants A(-1TS) AND B(DT) So a second enfeeble would be what exactly?

AABB? but B is definitely a special rule which seems to be agreed to by both sides so it doesn't stack with itself. so then;
AAB? that doesn't look right, it either stacks or it doesn't, not just 1/2.
AB? It's just 1 power that while in effect does 2 things, and Since it is granting a SR, it doesn't stack with itself. It's granting the enfeeble special rule that does just AB

You know what, forget my whole wargear thing. I completely forgot where I was going with it.

You were trying to show how if you had 2 pieces of wargear doing 2 different things you'd end up only using 1/2 of one

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - I have permission to resolve each power in turn. There is nothing stating the powers themselves need to accumulate

I cast Enfeeble on the unit. I cast it again. I resolve both, getting -2

Pewrmission was granted, no denial has ever been found by you, and therefore your argument fails.

I see permission for it to be used twice... I don't see permission for them to be cumulative. As the BRB tells us what is cumulative, that means they are not. It's the same reason pistols are not Rapid Fire. The book does not say that they are, so they are not. Without permission from the rules Enfeeble is not cumulative with Enfeeble. Non-cumulatively, how many of the same blessing/malediction can be 'in effect' on a target?.... just one. One blessing/malediction 'in effect' means only one instance of its modifier(s) are applied. Please find and cite this 'permission granted' for same powers to accumulate.

Permission to use twice on the same target is insufficient. The ability to add more does not mean it's cumulative.

Modifiers stacking says nothing about the powers.

grendel083 wrote:Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

I agree and I feel the same way about powers that grant modifiers. The powers are not themselves modifiers or SRs and are not governed by their rules so cumulative/non-cumulative cannot be determined by them.

 Abandon wrote:

grendel083 wrote:Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

I agree and I feel the same way about powers that grant modifiers. The powers are not themselves modifiers or SRs and are not governed by their rules so cumulative/non-cumulative cannot be determined by them.

If it grants a Special Rule, then that special rule must follow the rules for special rules.
Modifiers must follow the rules for modifiers.
Nothing lets you ignore this.
Special rules are specifically forbidden from stacking, modifiers are not.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

grendel083 wrote:Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

I agree and I feel the same way about powers that grant modifiers. The powers are not themselves modifiers or SRs and are not governed by their rules so cumulative/non-cumulative cannot be determined by them.

If it grants a Special Rule, then that special rule must follow the rules for special rules.
Modifiers must follow the rules for modifiers.
Nothing lets you ignore this.
Special rules are specifically forbidden from stacking, modifiers are not.

No permission for the powers first direct effect to be cumulative and the first thing it does is come 'into effect'.

A = Enfeeble in effect on the target(non-cumulative), Which causes B and C
B = modifiers(cumulative)
C = All terrain is difficult (non-cumulative by nature)

A + A + A + A = A ----> BC

Unless you have something that says the same 'powers in effect' are cumulative...

Abandon, Page 2 says that the modifiers are cumulative.

You are allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on a target unit.

You are also allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on the same target unit with a different psyker.

Page 2 applies because both of these powers carry a -1 or +1 modifier, and as such, since there are two different castings on a single unit, they stack because Page 2 says they do.

While I believe that all psychic powers stack (except when otherwise specified) I do see the opposition's point of view.

The Pro side is basically saying (and this is just a general summation) psychic powers stack because modifiers stack.
The Con side is saying two things. One, psychic powers don't stack because they are special rules. Two, psychic powers don't stack because they do not have permission to stack the effects.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon, Page 2 says that the modifiers are cumulative.

You are allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on a target unit.

You are also allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on the same target unit with a different psyker.

Page 2 applies because both of these powers carry a -1 or +1 modifier, and as such, since there are two different castings on a single unit, they stack because Page 2 says they do.

even if you ignore the first paragraph of my last post the rest explains the nonstacking argument clearly.

 Bausk wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon, Page 2 says that the modifiers are cumulative.

You are allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on a target unit.

You are also allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on the same target unit with a different psyker.

Page 2 applies because both of these powers carry a -1 or +1 modifier, and as such, since there are two different castings on a single unit, they stack because Page 2 says they do.

even if you ignore the first paragraph of my last post the rest explains the nonstacking argument clearly.

Except there is one issue with your previous post, this:

 Bausk wrote:
Given that USR's can grant USR's and other special rules it seems that the psyker USR would grant the special rules pertaining to psychic powers. As such they are bound by the same rules

Citation needed, because the rules do not say that. remember that different are cumulative does not mean the same power is not cumulative, and we have permission to cast it on a single unit multiple times.

sirlynchmob wrote:

under resolving power
"unless otherwise stated the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"

nosferatu1001 wrote:

The context is exactly what it states - in this case, contextually it is a reminder.

But you know that - we've been here before. You have no argument against that, you just repeat it hoping others will believe it.

How is that a reminder if it is not previously stated? You've said this often and I've never been clear on the basis.

Given that the psyker usr is tje only way to get powers I'm inclined to believe that powers are not standard rules that apply to everyone like movement does. Also given that I stated that evdn if you ignore the first patagraph the rest of the post is still valid on its own making light of it as the key failure of my argument is moot.

Nothing in my argument mentions page two because its not relevant until what grants the modifier is clarified as being able to have multiple instances of the same named power. The crux of this argument has nothing to do with modifiers or page two so further citations of it as permission will be considered as irrelevant until the first portion is clarified.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon, Page 2 says that the modifiers are cumulative.

You are allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on a target unit.

You are also allowed to cast enfeeble (Or hammerhand) on the same target unit with a different psyker.

Page 2 applies because both of these powers carry a -1 or +1 modifier, and as such, since there are two different castings on a single unit, they stack because Page 2 says they do.

A swing and a missed the point entirely... what do modifiers have to do with the number of Enfeebles in effect? That it grants a modifier after coming into effect means literally nothing to the point I made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

... remember that different are cumulative does not mean the same power is not cumulative, and we have permission to cast it on a single unit multiple times.

This part, the part in bold... means absolutely nothing to this debate and yet has been touted for 14 pagers now. The ability to add more of something does not mean that it is cumulative. Never has, never will. Those are entirely different aspects that in no way equal each other. Please look up the word cumulative as I've already quoted you the meaning from the Oxford dictionary but you seem completely unwilling to actually attempt to understand what I've been communicating.

Can add more ≠ Cumulative

Stop trying to use this as permission, it does not work that way and sounds more ridiculous every time someone says it dispute it being by definition, as I've pointed out many times, completely false.

 Abandon wrote:
Can add more ≠ Cumulative

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Cumulative: adjective
increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions

These two statements directly contradict each other...

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Can add more ≠ Cumulative

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Cumulative: adjective
increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions

These two statements directly contradict each other...

Incorrect.

One is the ability to add more the other is what happens when you add more. Not the same thing.

Edit: Conversely, if something is not cumulative, it will not 'increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions'. Either way it does not care if you can add successive additions, it only defines what happens when you do.

So if you tell me there are two Enfeebles on a unit I'd ask why you 'increased the quantity by successive additions' AKA treated them cumulatively.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

... remember that different are cumulative does not mean the same power is not cumulative, and we have permission to cast it on a single unit multiple times.

This part, the part in bold... means absolutely nothing to this debate and yet has been touted for 14 pagers now. The ability to add more of something does not mean that it is cumulative. Never has, never will. Those are entirely different aspects that in no way equal each other. Please look up the word cumulative as I've already quoted you the meaning from the Oxford dictionary but you seem completely unwilling to actually attempt to understand what I've been communicating.

Can add more ≠ Cumulative

Stop trying to use this as permission, it does not work that way and sounds more ridiculous every time someone says it dispute it being by definition, as I've pointed out many times, completely false.

It means everything.

For instance, it means that two enfeebles (Or Hammerhands) are ion effect on the target unit.

Then we look at what each one does, and Page 2, presto Stacking All RAW.

You can ignore this as long as you want, but the fact still remains that there are two instances of the psychic power in effect on the same unit, and we have to resolve each one, luckily Page 2 tells us the rules on how to do so.

you can ignore it, but you are being disingenuous by doing so.

Thank you and good night, I am done, since your side is literally ignoring the rules, and keep doing so.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

... remember that different are cumulative does not mean the same power is not cumulative, and we have permission to cast it on a single unit multiple times.

This part, the part in bold... means absolutely nothing to this debate and yet has been touted for 14 pagers now. The ability to add more of something does not mean that it is cumulative. Never has, never will. Those are entirely different aspects that in no way equal each other. Please look up the word cumulative as I've already quoted you the meaning from the Oxford dictionary but you seem completely unwilling to actually attempt to understand what I've been communicating.

Can add more ≠ Cumulative

Stop trying to use this as permission, it does not work that way and sounds more ridiculous every time someone says it dispute it being by definition, as I've pointed out many times, completely false.

It means everything.

For instance, it means that two enfeebles (Or Hammerhands) are ion effect on the target unit.

Then we look at what each one does, and Page 2, presto Stacking All RAW.

You can ignore this as long as you want, but the fact still remains that there are two instances of the psychic power in effect on the same unit, and we have to resolve each one, luckily Page 2 tells us the rules on how to do so.

you can ignore it, but you are being disingenuous by doing so.

Thank you and good night, I am done, since your side is literally ignoring the rules, and keep doing so.

(added bold to highlight the problem area)

Abandon wrote:So if you tell me there are two Enfeebles on a unit I'd ask why you 'increased the quantity by successive additions' AKA treated them cumulatively.

Is Enfeeble a modifier? No, it grants a modifiers among other things. Presto! It's not permitted to act cumulatively with other Enfeebles... Then why did "you 'increased the quantity by successive additions' AKA treated them cumulatively?" -shameless self quoting

It would be best if you approached this matter using mechanistic reductionism. my knowledge at this point is that same powers are not cumulative unless they state otherwise. The reason for this is because we are explicitly told that different powers are cumulative, but this isn't given for same powers. It can then be debated that rejection nor permission is given for same powers. But RAI from giving permission explicitly to different powers would mean that it is not the case for same powers. Which then leads to the main debate of the definition of "different". I personally believe that if two casters both do enfeeble on a unit and it is seen as different, then of course the modifiers stack because the power itself stacks.

Ok lets put it this way. no one is disputing the rules of page two. As a matter of fact the rules on page two are perfectly accepted rukes for modifiers. however, we are not talking about modifiers. we are talking about psychic powers. so far all evidence presented indicates no stacking of powers of the same name (read as the same power) is permitted. no evidence outside of an iterpretation of 'different powers may stack' has been offered. again, page two is irrelevant in this discussion so please stop citing it as justification of stacking the same power. cite something relevant.

 chillis wrote:
It would be best if you approached this matter using mechanistic reductionism. Abandon and my viewpoint on this is in terms that same powers are not cumulative unless they state otherwise. The reason for this is because we are explicitly told that different powers are cumulative, but this isn't given for same powers. It can then be debated that rejection nor permission is given for same powers. But RAI from giving permission explicitly to different powers would mean that it is not the case for same powers. Which then leads to the main debate of the definition of "different". I personally believe that if two casters both do enfeeble on a unit and it is seen as different, then of course the modifiers stack because the power itself stacks.
-Abandon sorry if I may have put words in your mouth, I will delete/edit if need be.

I usually prefer not to be spoken for but I see nothing here misrepresenting my views. Perhaps I'll try breaking it down more tomorrow, getting late for me so I'm off for the night.

 chillis wrote:
It would be best if you approached this matter using mechanistic reductionism. my knowledge at this point is that same powers are not cumulative unless they state otherwise. The reason for this is because we are explicitly told that different powers are cumulative, but this isn't given for same powers. It can then be debated that rejection nor permission is given for same powers. But RAI from giving permission explicitly to different powers would mean that it is not the case for same powers. Which then leads to the main debate of the definition of "different". I personally believe that if two casters both do enfeeble on a unit and it is seen as different, then of course the modifiers stack because the power itself stacks.

GW deffinition of same and different in this context has been discussed and as far as I am concerned solved (I think this was pretty much set, we moved away from this a long time ago). Same / different refers to the named Power, not the source, or other rules within BRB start breaking down and end up in a sticky gloopy mess. There are more than 1 instance can be brought forwards to prove this, you can search for the other 10 or so 15 page long threads on the subject, and have some kind of 'Spot the quotes' egg hunt. Or just trust me when I say we've been over and over and over this.

So nem, you.are of the opinion that only different named powers have permission to stack or have their modifers cumulate?

Say in the case of two enfeebles from two psykers only one modifier is applied, or rather the second is sustaining the effect of enfeeble and not having the modifier accumulate?

 Bausk wrote:
So nem, you.are of the opinion that only different named powers have permission to stack or have their modifers cumulate?

Say in the case of two enfeebles from two psykers only one modifier is applied, or rather the second is sustaining the effect of enfeeble and not having the modifier accumulate?

I think I posted a few pages ago, on these threads I generally just lurk on this one and pop in and out with things I am sure of. The definitions of same / different being something I am sure of.

Personally I'm on the bench, I would be happy to play it either way. If I would put money on the FAQ outcome (Maybe I should be betting on IF we get anymore FAQ's eh ) I would lean towards not stacking as a blanket (Not just Enfeeble). Based on my own unease around the fact stacking is never supported for the same power, and the use of wording throughout the BRB on abilities / rules / anything stacking- though I've pointed out before it's a pretty grey area. In nearly all instances we are given instruction into what does and does not stack.

Basically, yes I am of that opinion. All points brought up in these threads for and against are pretty watery and most of based on a certain length of assumption, which is probably why these threads won't go away .

I agree Enfeeble in itself maybe a special case, we may be given the outcome of :some stack: in which case Enfeeble would not.

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but what about the haywire effect of Objuration Mechanicum?

Completly agree nem. Though its not just the brb. many 6th ed powers have specific permission to stack while others do not have this permission. If this wasn't the case the somewhat shady interpretation of 'different powers may stack' in the brb may hold water against the more plausable argument that they can't if they are the same named power without an exception in their respective rules. but still even with this the faq could turn it around and make all powers stack.

while its not 100% its as close as we are likely to get without an faq so I'm inclined to play with such powers not atacking unless they are differently named or the same with an exception in their rule.

So when you case Hammerhand a second time it just disappears?

The line around AABB reducing to AAB was correct - you have two different effects, one is a modifier the other a special rule. Due to the restriction on special rules you end up with a single USR, but two modifiers, and as per page 2 you use normal maths.

Oh, and HIWPI is stacking, as does 100% of all UK tournaments attended since 6th edition began - roughly 20, includign 100= players. Note I only play one army with psychic powers, and the only one that stacked was Hammerhand....

As far as I read it in the codex and faq hammer hand shouldn't stack. Might of Titan allows for accumulation with hammer hand expressly however. Both essentially apply the same effects though Might Of Titan has an additional effect and can be cast on other units. Its almost as if Ward was giving players a way of getting +2S without using the same power...No clearly he wanted GK players to either double stack Hammer Hand or Might of Titan. Mind you +2S, 3D6+S armour penetration sounds like ward. Wow even better; 2 Might of Titans and 1 Hammer Hand for +3S and 3D6+S armour penetration. Ward I salute you.

So what were we talking about? oh yes, how every one should clearly be playing GKs with two Libbys so they can roll S7 death and make a mockery of arrnour because clearly when they say "Different powers can stack" they ment to say "All powers, the same or different, may stack". And clearly the specifically mentioned allowances of powers to stack with themselves in some, but not all, powers is just a reminder and not an indication that some 100 odd players in 20 tounies Nos has been to have been wrong or mislead.

Or maybe they assumed you were stacking Hammer hand with Might of Titans, like it was intended that GKs have two +S powers with one specifically stating that it can stack with the other....

Hammerhand explicitly stacked through the entirety of the 5th edition codex. Shucks, guess youre wrong there. Maybe the removal of this reminder (as it was purely that - a reminder) from the FAQ when 6th edition rolled round is because they thought that having a section explicitly called MULTIPLE MODIFIERS would mean people would know how to handle multiple, er, modifiers.

No, of course it is just people being misled. Of course it is! OR, perhaps people see a reminder as just that, and dont just assume it means anything more. Especially when you are told how to handle multiple modifiers, and it just so happens to function exactly how you would it expect it to function.

No, instead you should be expected to take a convoluted, illogical (literally - going from A->B to B->A IS illogical) position, which randomly ignores page 2, has no basis either in the current or prior rules, and is such a sound position because....nope, got me stumped there.

Play a houserule if you like, currently I will play as per the rules on page 2 tells me to do - whcih is that unless told otherwise 1+1 = 2.

when 6th edition rolled round is because they thought that having a section explicitly called MULTIPLE MODIFIERS would mean people would know how to handle multiple, er, modifiers

What if you don't have multiple modifiers? You've yet to prove that you have multiple modifiers. Please just state the page and paragraph that states the same psychic power is cumulative with itself and then we have multiple modifiers so we can use page 2.

Shouldn't be a problem as you claim this is RaW.

So are we talking about 5th ed or 6th Nos? Frankly I'm discussing 6th. And my position of page two has been stated clearly...twice. And no, in the GK codex I looked up Hammer Hand and the funniest thing happened; It didn't say anything about being able to stack with itself. Admittedly I only looked at the librarian power list, that part that explains all the GK powers.

None the less. Lets discuss the grey areas that occur before we apply page two shall we? Like interpreting "Different powers may stack" and why only some 6th ed powers have specific statements about being able to stack and others don't?

Because that's where the root of the problem is, page two doesn't seem to resolve the issue of psychic powers. It is rather handy for the powers that can apply thier effects that are modifiers though. Just what powers can do that is still debatable however.

Also what are psychic powers is not special rules? Yes they are not USRs obviously but would anyone define them as basic rules like movement? They are inherently granted by one of two USRs which is only available in small or limited amounts, does this not warrant calling them special?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OR, perhaps people see a reminder as just that, and dont just assume it means anything more.

Reminder of what? You keep repeating this, so I assume it makes some sense to you, but I honestly don't get it. Why on earth would anyone put in rules dealing with psychic powers in general a reminder that specifically different powers are cumulative, if they mean that all are? Is there some specific danger that people would forget that different powers are cumulative, whilst remembering just fine that same powers are cumulative? It just doesn't make any sense to write that. As I said earlier, it would make just as much sense to have a reminder that powers with letter 'e' in their name are cumulative, even though you meant that all powers are cumulative.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OR, perhaps people see a reminder as just that, and dont just assume it means anything more.

Reminder of what? You keep repeating this, so I assume it makes some sense to you, but I honestly don't get it. Why on earth would anyone put in rules dealing with psychic powers in general a reminder that specifically different powers are cumulative, if they mean that all are?

Let's be honest, if they didn't spell it out for people that the effects from different powers are cumulative, there would be some guy on this forum arguing you couldn't stack the effects of any 2 powers because the rulebook doesn't explicitly say you can.

Let's be honest, if they didn't spell it out for people that the effects from different powers are cumulative, there would be some guy on this forum arguing you couldn't stack the effects of any 2 powers because the rulebook doesn't explicitly say you can.

So why didn't they spell out the same powers stack? Why do they spell out in a few select powers that the power stacks with itself. They remind you 3 times that different powers stack which is a very bizarre thing to do if all powers stack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OR, perhaps people see a reminder as just that, and dont just assume it means anything more.

Reminder of what? You keep repeating this, so I assume it makes some sense to you, but I honestly don't get it. Why on earth would anyone put in rules dealing with psychic powers in general a reminder that specifically different powers are cumulative, if they mean that all are?

Let's be honest, if they didn't spell it out for people that the effects from different powers are cumulative, there would be some guy on this forum arguing you couldn't stack the effects of any 2 powers because the rulebook doesn't explicitly say you can.

And without the "whilst this power is in effect" line, there would be those that argue that the -1s/t is permanent.

This topic has repeated 3-4 times, gone 10+ pages each time, and been locked without resolution. No new information has been added to the discussion this time. The best you can do is follow the tournament FAQs where you play or discuss it with your opponent beforehand.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
OR, perhaps people see a reminder as just that, and dont just assume it means anything more.

Reminder of what? You keep repeating this, so I assume it makes some sense to you, but I honestly don't get it. Why on earth would anyone put in rules dealing with psychic powers in general a reminder that specifically different powers are cumulative, if they mean that all are?

Let's be honest, if they didn't spell it out for people that the effects from different powers are cumulative, there would be some guy on this forum arguing you couldn't stack the effects of any 2 powers because the rulebook doesn't explicitly say you can.

And without the "whilst this power is in effect" line, there would be those that argue that the -1s/t is permanent.

This topic has repeated 3-4 times, gone 10+ pages each time, and been locked without resolution. No new information has been added to the discussion this time. The best you can do is follow the tournament FAQs where you play or discuss it with your opponent beforehand.

That or get people to sign a petition supporting your viewpoint to submit to GW so they can address this issue, since GW is totally on the ball with community feedback and such.

But this issue has long lost any debating merits.

Bausk - I was responding to your claim about the design intent behind hammerhand.

You brought it up, I pointed out you were wrong. I am sorry that you feel so backed into a corner you cannot admit you were wrong - in your contention that HH was not designed to stack - and have to lash out with a statemetn about 6th, despite the codex being designed during 5th edition

You were not talking about 6th, you were determining whether it was intended to stack or not. I proved it was. Any chance of you acknowledging this error?

Crimson - and I have explained it, in other threads. I do not feel like reminding you of it here.

Enfeeble / HH / etc apply modifiers, according to the definition on page 2. We know how to apply multiple modifiers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Crimson - and I have explained it, in other threads. I do not feel like reminding you of it here.

Okay. I'm sure it was just as convincing as you non-existent proof on the RAW support for your reading of 'this power', that you sent me searching for.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So when you case Hammerhand a second time it just disappears?

The line around AABB reducing to AAB was correct - you have two different effects, one is a modifier the other a special rule. Due to the restriction on special rules you end up with a single USR, but two modifiers, and as per page 2 you use normal maths.

Oh, and HIWPI is stacking, as does 100% of all UK tournaments attended since 6th edition began - roughly 20, includign 100= players. Note I only play one army with psychic powers, and the only one that stacked was Hammerhand....

AAB is an illegal state.

In essence you have special rule "E" that while in effect does AB, so E=AB

After a second casting you can't have EE as that violates pg 32 and you are just left with E=AB. The only other legal option if you support stacking is EE=AABB and BB is also an illegal state because of pg 32.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So when you case Hammerhand a second time it just disappears?

The line around AABB reducing to AAB was correct - you have two different effects, one is a modifier the other a special rule. Due to the restriction on special rules you end up with a single USR, but two modifiers, and as per page 2 you use normal maths.

Oh, and HIWPI is stacking, as does 100% of all UK tournaments attended since 6th edition began - roughly 20, includign 100= players. Note I only play one army with psychic powers, and the only one that stacked was Hammerhand....

AAB is an illegal state.

In essence you have special rule "E" that while in effect does AB, so E=AB

After a second casting you can't have EE as that violates pg 32 and you are just left with E=AB. The only other legal option if you support stacking is EE=AABB and BB is also an illegal state because of pg 32.

Where did you get special rule "E". As has been mentioned before Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules.

Otherwise, The Swarmlord would have the following:
Special Rules:

Synapse Creature

Alien Cunning

Blade Parry

Psychic Monstrosity

Psyker

Shadow in the Warp

Swarm Leader

The Horror

Psychic Scream

Paroxysm

Leech Essence

Instead it has:
Special Rules:

Synapse Creature

Alien Cunning

Blade Parry

Psychic Monstrosity

Psyker

Shadow in the Warp

Swarm Leader

Psychic Powers:

The Horror

Psychic Scream

Paroxysm

Leech Essence

@happyjew Oh come on now, you can't quote the rule then ask me where I got it.

Maledictions inflict penalizing special rules. Which would the "the power" mentioned in enfeeble.

ergo the effect of enfeeble is a special rule that does AB and as such is also limited by pg 32.

So -1 Toughness is a special rule now?

 Happyjew wrote:
So -1 Toughness is a special rule now?

Yes, you only have the -1 toughness while the power(SR) is in effect. Should we ever get a way to remove powers from units would you argue that just the -1 stays while the difficult terrain gets removed?

Text removed.
Reds8n

Happy it has not been proven that powers are not special rules, only dispjted. I have brought up several points on that subject that have not been addressed so if you dispute it please feel free to addresss them.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So -1 Toughness is a special rule now?

Yes, you only have the -1 toughness while the power(SR) is in effect. Should we ever get a way to remove powers from units would you argue that just the -1 stays while the difficult terrain gets removed?

So if modifiers are special rules then I guess I cannot stack Hammerhand (+1S) with Furious Charge (+1S) as that would be stacking special rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:
I have brought up several points on that subject that have not been addressed so if you dispute it please feel free to addresss them.

I probably missed it. Would you mind re-posting or PMing me?

Happy: see that's how you do it Nos. Happy made a logical argument based on more than page two using the current rules. Well put happy, that is a great point for powers not being special rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
So -1 Toughness is a special rule now?

Yes, you only have the -1 toughness while the power(SR) is in effect. Should we ever get a way to remove powers from units would you argue that just the -1 stays while the difficult terrain gets removed?

So if modifiers are special rules then I guess I cannot stack Hammerhand (+1S) with Furious Charge (+1S) as that would be stacking special rules?

Hammerhand is not furious charge, they are different SR's, ergo the modifiers those SR's grant stack.

You get the -1S -1T as the result of a single SR on a unit, they are not themselves the SR. Enfeeble puts a single SR on a unit that allows the 2 modifiers and the difficult terrain.

so again, Should we ever get a way to remove a single power from a unit would you argue that just the -1 stays while the difficult terrain gets removed? or would you agree that they are both the result of the single SR/power enfeeble?

sirlynchmob wrote:
You get the -1S -1T as the result of a single SR on a unit, they are not themselves the SR. Enfeeble puts a single SR on a unit that allows the 2 modifiers and the difficult terrain.

so again, Should we ever get a way to remove a single power from a unit would you argue that just the -1 stays while the difficult terrain gets removed? or would you agree that they are both the result of the single SR/power enfeeble?

Actually, the only "special rule" enfeeble gives is the treat terrain as difficult.

Just because something gives a special rule does not make the something a special rule. Otherwise, Wargear would be special rules, Unit type would be a special rule (except for "Infantry"), etc.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You get the -1S -1T as the result of a single SR on a unit, they are not themselves the SR. Enfeeble puts a single SR on a unit that allows the 2 modifiers and the difficult terrain.

so again, Should we ever get a way to remove a single power from a unit would you argue that just the -1 stays while the difficult terrain gets removed? or would you agree that they are both the result of the single SR/power enfeeble?

Actually, the only "special rule" enfeeble gives is the treat terrain as difficult.

Just because something gives a special rule does not make the something a special rule. Otherwise, Wargear would be special rules, Unit type would be a special rule (except for "Infantry"), etc.

Wargear can grant SR's right?
Psychic powers can grant SR's right?
Maledictions can cause penalizing SR's right?

In the end it's just one power on the unit, one power that looks like a SR, quacks like a SR, ergo that one power must be a SR.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Wargear can grant SR's right?
Psychic powers can grant SR's right?
Maledictions can cause penalizing SR's right?

In the end it's just one power on the unit, one power that looks like a SR, quacks like a SR, ergo that one power must be a SR.

(Emphasis mine)

Note: the underlined text is pure assumption not based on the rules.

As is the assumption that same named powers may stack inspite of evidence eluding to the contrary.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Wargear can grant SR's right?
Psychic powers can grant SR's right?
Maledictions can cause penalizing SR's right?

In the end it's just one power on the unit, one power that looks like a SR, quacks like a SR, ergo that one power must be a SR.

(Emphasis mine)

Note: the underlined text is not an assumption and based FULLY the rules.

Fixed that for ya. Do you deny that wargear, pg 32-psychic powers and pg 68-maledictions can grant SR's? Do you deny that enfeeble targets a unit with a single power?

No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

So to all who still think it stacks per page 2. You believe it stacks because it has a modifier correct? Which in your line of thought makes the effects of the power a modifier as well as a psychic power and needs to follow the rules for both? Still trying to understand why you are applying the rules for modifiers to a psychic power.

It seems to me the first effect is for the power to come 'into effect' on the target. I'm not just talking about Enfeeble either, all blessings/maledictions are said to have a limited duration to be 'in effect'. During that time the effect of the power is active upon the target similar to how a SR or piece of wargear might have one or more constant effects, triggered effects, etc. Not that it is or counts as either of those just to say it lingers on them as the other two would if only for a limited time. So the effect titled Endurance or the effect titled Enfeeble or whatever the power is named, is sustained for its duration upon the target and will grant(as in act as the cause of) any modifiers, SRs or whatever else it states. As such it,itself, is no more a modifier than any special rule or wargear is, which is to say it is not. An SR might grant a modifier but does not stack even though we are told modifiers do so because an SR itself is not a modifier. Furious Charge grants a +1S modifier but that does not mean it is governed by the rules for modifiers, only the modifier itself is.

Now it's easy to prove that SRs don't stack because they plainly say as much. It's easy to prove that wounds, modifiers, different psychic powers do stack for the same reason. Same psychic powers though are neither permitted nor denied leading some to believe it's up in the air. Taking stock of what material we have we know that modifiers, wounds and different psychic powers are permitted to act cumulatively and that Special Rules are specifically denied that status. It has been said these don't mean anything for this debate but they do. Specific permission given to some things means, unless otherwise stated, no blanket permission can be assumed in a permissive rule set. Of course this might lead some to believe this also means specific denial means that, unless otherwise stated, there is no blanket denial that can be assumed either but that would be in error. The rules are permission based not denial based. Meaning that if permission is not given, it is automatically denied. As that is the case it makes the list of things permitted to be cumulative very relevant as notably, 'same' psychic powers are not on the list.

BRB pg 68 Blessing - "They grant extra abilities to the Psyker's allies, such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules. Blessings target a friendly unit(s) and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn. "
BRB pg 68 Malediction - "They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules. Maledictions target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn."
BRB pages 419-423 Enfeeble - "Whilst the power is in effect...", Endurance - "Whilst the power is in effect...", Forewarning - "Whilst the power is in effect...", Dominate - "Whilst the power is in effect...", etc...
BRB pg 2 Modifiers - "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
BRB pg 15 Allocate wounds - "Continue allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until there are no more wounds left..."
BRB pg 68 Resolve Psychic Power - "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
BRB pg 32 A Compendium of Special Rules - "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
BRB pg 37 Furious Charge - "adds +l to its Strength characteristic until the end of that phase"

 Abandon wrote:
So to all who still think it stacks per page 2. You believe it stack because it has a modifier correct? Which in your line of thought makes the effects of the power a modifier as well as a psychic power and needs to follow the rules for both? Still trying to understand why you are applying the rules for modifiers to a psychic power.

We have spelled it out for you, but I will do it again as you seem to have missed it.

We have permission for two different psykers to cast enfeeble on a single target unit twice.

This unit now has -2 toughness as per page two because each enfeeble subtracts 1 from the Toughness of the unit.

The rules are permission based not denial based. Meaning that if permission is not given, it is automatically denied. As that is the case it makes the list of things permitted to be cumulative very relevant as notably, 'same' psychic powers are not on the list.

Except we have permission in the case of Enfeeble, or Hammerhand, so you have to find the restriction otherwise it stacks.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

On this I actually agree. That psychic powers are granted through a special rule does not make them special rules just as a power granting a modifier does not make the power a modifier.

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

So you agree they grant special rules, that's what the second question leads to that you don't want to answer.

Maledictions create a SR on the target unit.
Enfeeble creates a single SR on the target that does various things.
pg 32 says the same SR is not cumulative & 68 supports that idea

There's enough rule support for this idea that it is RAW. But go ahead and just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Keep to the conclusion you want and assume the rules support it.

Enfeeble creates a SR on the target?

Citation needed, because I do not see -1 Toughness in the Special rules section...

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

On this I actually agree. That psychic powers are granted through a special rule does not make them special rules just as a power granting a modifier does not make the power a modifier.

Yea the power is not bound by modifiers as the power is not simply a number, but that does not matter as we have permission to cast enfeeble or hammerhand twice from two different psykers on a single target unit, and there is no restriction so they both apply their modifiers.

You should read Abandon's comment again at the end of page 15. It has the restriction that you're asking for and was very well laid out

 chillis wrote:
You should read Abandon's comment again at the end of page 15. It has the restriction that you're asking for and was very well laid out

It really does not have the restriction saying you can not cast hammerhand (Or enfeeble) on the same unit twice...

Correct, it has to do with resolving.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

So you agree they grant special rules, that's what the second question leads to that you don't want to answer.

Maledictions create a SR on the target unit.
Enfeeble creates a single SR on the target that does various things.
pg 32 says the same SR is not cumulative & 68 supports that idea

There's enough rule support for this idea that it is RAW. But go ahead and just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Keep to the conclusion you want and assume the rules support it.

This argument is unfortunately technically incorrect. Both Blessings and Maledictions per page 68 state the modify characteristics or grant special rules. Altering states is definitely a modifying a characteristic which is listed separately from granting special rules. -1T, not a special rule.

 Abandon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

So you agree they grant special rules, that's what the second question leads to that you don't want to answer.

Maledictions create a SR on the target unit.
Enfeeble creates a single SR on the target that does various things.
pg 32 says the same SR is not cumulative & 68 supports that idea

There's enough rule support for this idea that it is RAW. But go ahead and just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Keep to the conclusion you want and assume the rules support it.

This argument is unfortunately technically incorrect. Both Blessings and Maledictions per page 68 state the modify characteristics or grant special rules. Altering states is definitely a modifying a characteristic which is listed separately from granting special rules. -1T, not a special rule.

Enfeeble creates a SR on the target?

Citation needed, because I do not see -1 Toughness in the Special rules section...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Enfeeble creates a SR on the target?

Citation needed, because I do not see -1 Toughness in the Special rules section...

pg 68 maledictions, notice the phrase inflicting penalizing special rules.& 68.

check out pg 32 where it states that psychic powers can grant special rules. Also note that is not the complete list of special rules. They even say it's not an exhaustive list, you're just looking at the common ones.

Ergo the effect of enfeeble is a SR that does many things including but not limited to -1 T. It's not just a modifier. You're treating it as such and that is where you're going wrong.

Does treating open terrain as difficult terrain breaks or bends the main rules about open terrain? Yep. Ergo it meets the criteria to be a special rule, pg 68 says it is a special rule. That makes it a special rule as it is just one power on the unit doing 3 different things. It just happens to do some other stuff as well.

If you want to keep to the claim that the result of the enfeeble on the target unit is not a special rule, then per pg 32 it does not have permission to modify the rules, nor does pg 2 allow it to modify characteristics. So all the results of enfeeble can be ignored outright.

I have more rules to support my conclusion based on the rules so if you want to disagree that it is RAW, Then I claim RAI. Because it is obvious this is what they intended.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, it is not based in the rules at all and it is just an assumption. there is nothing that says psychic powers are Special Rules.

They can grant special rules, but they themselves are not special rules.

Plus your first question has nothing to do with your second question.

So you agree they grant special rules, that's what the second question leads to that you don't want to answer.

Maledictions create a SR on the target unit.
Enfeeble creates a single SR on the target that does various things.
pg 32 says the same SR is not cumulative & 68 supports that idea

There's enough rule support for this idea that it is RAW. But go ahead and just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Keep to the conclusion you want and assume the rules support it.

This argument is unfortunately technically incorrect. Both Blessings and Maledictions per page 68 state the modify characteristics or grant special rules. Altering states is definitely a modifying a characteristic which is listed separately from granting special rules. -1T, not a special rule.

so if you have 3 sources for furious charge all the +1 to Str stack because they are modifiers and not part of the furious charge special rule?
does 3 sources of stealth mean you get +3 to your cover save as modifiers stack and is not part of the stealth special rule?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


This argument is unfortunately technically incorrect. Both Blessings and Maledictions per page 68 state the modify characteristics or grant special rules. Altering states is definitely a modifying a characteristic which is listed separately from granting special rules. -1T, not a special rule.

Enfeeble creates a SR on the target?

Citation needed, because I do not see -1 Toughness in the Special rules section...

A assume you misquoted or did not read my comment because I was actually agreeing with you. So in reply I'll just say it does, it makes all terrain difficult to the target. That is of course separate from the stat modifiers which, as I just said, are not special rules.

Edit: Forgot the citation you requested. BRB pg 419 Enfeeble - "...and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

While you're at it Reaper feel free to cite the rule that clearly states that two different psykers may stack yhe same named power. Rather than assumng that different powers pertains to that rather than different namwd powers.

 Bausk wrote:
While you're at it Reaper feel free to cite the rule that clearly states that two different psykers may stack yhe same named power. Rather than assumng that different powers pertains to that rather than different namwd powers.

I have shown this.

I have permission for Psyker A to cast a power on a target unit.

I have permission for Psyker A to cast a power on a target unit. (The rules do not restrict a different casting of the same power on a single target unit)

 Abandon wrote:
A assume you misquoted or did not read my comment because I was actually agreeing with you. So in reply I'll just say it does, it makes all terrain difficult to the target. That is of course separate from the stat modifiers which, as I just said, are not special rules.

Edit: Forgot the citation you requested. BRB pg 419 Enfeeble - "...and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

No, I did not misquote, and the part you just quoted is not a special rule, special rules are found on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Enfeeble creates a SR on the target?

Citation needed, because I do not see -1 Toughness in the Special rules section...

pg 68 maledictions, notice the phrase inflicting penalizing special rules.& 68.

check out pg 32 where it states that psychic powers can grant special rules. Also note that is not the complete list of special rules. They even say it's not an exhaustive list, you're just looking at the common ones.

Ergo the effect of enfeeble is a SR that does many things including but not limited to -1 T. It's not just a modifier. You're treating it as such and that is where you're going wrong.

Does treating open terrain as difficult terrain breaks or bends the main rules about open terrain? Yep. Ergo it meets the criteria to be a special rule, pg 68 says it is a special rule. That makes it a special rule as it is just one power on the unit doing 3 different things. It just happens to do some other stuff as well.

If you want to keep to the claim that the result of the enfeeble on the target unit is not a special rule, then per pg 32 it does not have permission to modify the rules, nor does pg 2 allow it to modify characteristics. So all the results of enfeeble can be ignored outright.

I have more rules to support my conclusion based on the rules so if you want to disagree that it is RAW, Then I claim RAI. Because it is obvious this is what they intended.

You mean this part on Page 32?

"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear." (32)

Note the underlined, and also note that Enfeeble does not create a SR because it does not make it "abundantly clear." that it is a special rule, as it does not say that difficult terrain is a special rule and it is not listed on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are on pages 32-43 in the BRB or laid out in a codex.

sirlynchmob wrote:

so if you have 3 sources for furious charge all the +1 to attack stack because they are modifiers and not part of the furious charge special rule?
does 3 sources of stealth mean you get +3 to your cover save as modifiers stack and is not part of the stealth special rule?

I have covered this already... today, less than an hour ago... in this thread. Please read my posts if you going to question my views. It is rather rude to to waist everyone's time and muddle the discussion with pointlessly repetitive questions you would already know the answer to if cared to actually read what other people are saying.

@ deathreaper I'm sorry the line on pg 68 isn't clear enough for you.

enfeeble is a malediction, maledictions create special rules.

ergo the effect of enfeeble is a special rule

seems crystal clear to me.

sirlynchmob wrote:
@ deathreaper I'm sorry the line on pg 68 isn't clear enough for you.

enfeeble is a malediction, maledictions create special rules.

ergo the effect of enfeeble is a special rule

seems crystal clear to me.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is incorrect, it does not say that...

It says that can, not that they do.

Saying "maledictions create special rules" seems like you are saying that all maledictions create special rules, which of course is false.

Specifically it says " They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules." (Page 68, Emphasis mine. Note it says or)

This more points to the fact that "reducing their characteristics" is not the same as "inflicting penalising special rules"

 Abandon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

so if you have 3 sources for furious charge all the +1 to attack stack because they are modifiers and not part of the furious charge special rule?
does 3 sources of stealth mean you get +3 to your cover save as modifiers stack and is not part of the stealth special rule?

I have covered this already... today, less than an hour ago... in this thread. Please read my posts if you going to question my views. It is rather rude to to waist everyone's time and muddle the discussion with pointlessly repetitive questions you would already know the answer to if cared to actually read what other people are saying.

I said:

Maledictions create a SR on the target unit.
Enfeeble creates a single SR on the target that does various things.
pg 32 says the same SR is not cumulative & 68 supports that idea

you followed with:

 Abandon wrote:
This argument is unfortunately technically incorrect. Both Blessings and Maledictions per page 68 state the modify characteristics or grant special rules. Altering states is definitely a modifying a characteristic which is listed separately from granting special rules. -1T, not a special rule.

I never said anything about -1 T
The point is enfeeble puts a single power (whilst the power is in effect) on the target that adds a special rule and modifies some stats. It's not 3 separate things going on, just 1. Does it just modify a characteristic or does it do 3 things as part of 1 power? The fact that it does cover 3 different things including a special rule is what makes it definitively a special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
@ deathreaper I'm sorry the line on pg 68 isn't clear enough for you.

enfeeble is a malediction, maledictions create special rules.

ergo the effect of enfeeble is a special rule

seems crystal clear to me.

(Emphasis mine)
The underlined is incorrect, it does not say that...

It says that can, not that they do.

Saying "maledictions create special rules" seems like you are saying that all maledictions create special rules, which of course is false.

Specifically it says " They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules." (Page 68, Emphasis mine. Note it says or)

This more points to the fact that "reducing their characteristics" is not the same as "inflicting penalising special rules"

Right, note the word "OR" Just OR, no "and/or" no ands at all. does the power just modify a characteristic? no, it does other things. because of the other things it's not just reducing their characteristics so it must be inflicting a penalizing special rule.

No reaper. that is you stating a senario as rules. Not a cited rule. so please try again but this time with a rule citation to back up your claim. preferably a relevant one, not page two.

I leave this thread alone for 1 day and already people are claiming that all the effects of a psychic power are part of a special rule created by the power. As absurd as the very idea is, I guess I might as well provide evidence to the contrary: Endurance is cast a unit, Endurance grants 2 special rules to the unit, Feel No Pain and It Will Not Die. These are 2 completely distinct special rules, not one special rule that acts like both, if the unit in question already has FNP, it will only gain IWND, rather than having FNP and (special rule that acts like both FNP and IWND).

Really, I'm disappointed with you, YMDC. You used to twist rules to your advantage, now you're just making them up as you go along.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
A assume you misquoted or did not read my comment because I was actually agreeing with you. So in reply I'll just say it does, it makes all terrain difficult to the target. That is of course separate from the stat modifiers which, as I just said, are not special rules.

Edit: Forgot the citation you requested. BRB pg 419 Enfeeble - "...and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

No, I did not misquote, and the part you just quoted is not a special rule, special rules are found on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)
.

In that case per RAW Maledictions only do two things. BRB pg 68 "They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules"

So is it reducing a characteristic or inflicting a penalizing special rule?
Edit: Also highlighted the problem ares with you citation you quoted as 'proof'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

I never said anything about -1 T
The point is enfeeble puts a single power (whilst the power is in effect) on the target that adds a special rule and modifies some stats. It's not 3 separate things going on, just 1. Does it just modify a characteristic or does it do 3 things as part of 1 power? The fact that it does cover 3 different things including a special rule is what makes it definitively a special rule.

I agree with all but the part in bold as far as RAW. Wargear can do similar things but wargear is still wargear not a special rule. Likewise, Enfeeble being in effect is not a special rule just because it grants one.

...forgive me if I misinterpret the meaning behind your words but I think i got it right. You are saying Enfeeble being 'in effect' is a special rule correct?

Ok, I've gathered the problem lies here: "They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules". Now, we have maledictions that very clearly reduce characteristics and inflict penalising special rules. So we have 3 options to resolve this:
1. Assume that this descriptor line is put in place to explain what maledictions are to the reader, and does not actually impose a strict rule limiting maledictions to doing one or the other.
2. Invent a brand new rule where maledictions create these bizarre unnamed special rules that consist of all the effects of the power in question.
3. The game breaks whenever these powers are used, allowing us to tie a game we're losing by casting Enfeeble on something.

Now, I know which one is the logical choice, applying Occam's razor and just the teeniest bit of common sense, can anyone guess which one that is? (hint: it's not 2, 2 is dumb. 3 is potentially dumber, but not by much.)

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I leave this thread alone for 1 day and already people are claiming that all the effects of a psychic power are part of a special rule created by the power. As absurd as the very idea is, I guess I might as well provide evidence to the contrary: Endurance is cast a unit, Endurance grants 2 special rules to the unit, Feel No Pain and It Will Not Die. These are 2 completely distinct special rules, not one special rule that acts like both, if the unit in question already has FNP, it will only gain IWND, rather than having FNP and (special rule that acts like both FNP and IWND).

Really, I'm disappointed with you, YMDC. You used to twist rules to your advantage, now you're just making them up as you go along.

Making it up as you go along is a tradition that has a long and rich history that said to go back to to the days of the little metal men that hurt when someone throws them at you... those were the days...

 Abandon wrote:

In that case per RAW Maledictions only do two things. BRB pg 68 "They weaken the Psyker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules"

So is it reducing a characteristic or inflicting a penalizing special rule?
Edit: Also highlighted the problem ares with you citation you quoted as 'proof'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

I never said anything about -1 T
The point is enfeeble puts a single power (whilst the power is in effect) on the target that adds a special rule and modifies some stats. It's not 3 separate things going on, just 1. Does it just modify a characteristic or does it do 3 things as part of 1 power? The fact that it does cover 3 different things including a special rule is what makes it definitively a special rule.

I agree with all but the part in bold as far as RAW. Wargear can do similar things but wargear is still wargear not a special rule. Likewise, Enfeeble being in effect is not a special rule just because it grants one.

...forgive me if I misinterpret the meaning behind your words but I think i got it right. You are saying Enfeeble being 'in effect' is a special rule correct?

Yep, enfeeble is a psychic power inflicting a penalizing special rule. the special rule is everything after "whilst the power is in effect,....."
I've never said wargear is special rules, I said it can grant special rules.

Because the power is not just reducing their characteristics (A), so it must be inflicting a penalizing special rule(B). blessings & maledictions say its A or B. We seem to be agreeing on the outcome, you just don't agree with how I got here

edit:
and more specifically even though I've mentioned it before the "treats all terrain as difficult terrain" is definitely a special rule that meets all the criteria on pg 32 to be one.

 Bausk wrote:
No reaper. that is you stating a senario as rules. Not a cited rule. so please try again but this time with a rule citation to back up your claim. preferably a relevant one, not page two.

Check the Psychic powers section, specifically targeting.

I have permission from the Psychic power section to cast a psychic power on a unit, and again from a different psyker on the same unit.

DR - that proof was already given to Bausk, with no sensible rebuttal, but they keep repeating requests for an insanely narrow requirement that can't be met, because a more general allowance - the one you cite - already covers it.

Bausk - yawn, your OT post reported, ignore.

sirlynch - so your claim is that it creates a composite special rule? As pointed out, that is an argument belied by the BRB power Endurance, so please drop that assertion - it has no basis in rules.

I cast enfeeble, and two effects happen - -1T and the terrain alteration.

I cast enfeeble again, as per page two apply the second -1T, and apply a second terrain modification - which has no further effect.

All clear and simple rules. Done. Or alternatively people could go with a very convoluted reading, that requires literally making up a restriction from thin air, ignores the rules for multiply modifying stats without cause, etc.

One of the problems with 'Special Rules' 'Wargear' 'Abilities' and 'Phychic Powers' are in some sections in the rule book they are all treated completely seperatly. In some area's it only mentions one or two when it obviosly means more or all. 'Ability' is the least defined by the BRB, is is not as obvios as 'Wargear'.
'Special Rules' deffinition is so broad it could encompass all 4 of those.
Under Modifications itself it only includes 'Special rules' and 'Wargear' as notes to be able to apply modifications, and under Multiple modifyers we get 'Rules and Wargear' (As if Wargear are not rules???)


Basically I am saying each of these 4 may or may not be seperate, some may include others, BRB is very inconsistant in the use, however I don't believe PP to be Special Rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
No reaper. that is you stating a senario as rules. Not a cited rule. so please try again but this time with a rule citation to back up your claim. preferably a relevant one, not page two.

Check the Psychic powers section, specifically targeting.

I have permission from the Psychic power section to cast a psychic power on a unit, and again from a different psyker on the same unit.

I'm not disputing targeting, every psyker in your army may cast the same power on one unit for all I care. I'm disputing stacking effects. Now the key to this is in the wording of both Blessings and Maledictions. Now both say unless otherwise stated they are both assumed to last until the end of the next turn. Also both state that unless otherwise stated bonuses and penaltys are always cumulative from different blessings/maledictions.

Now this has been pointed out as a muddy area for both sides. However I submit that given that one psyker cannot cast the same power twice the only interpretation of different that makes any sense in the phrasing is Different named powers rather than from different sources. This coupled with specific allowances on some but not all blessing and maledictions in 6th ed powers leads to the simple conclusion that unless stated in the blessing or maledictions rules, only Different named blessings or maledictions may in fact stack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - that proof was already given to Bausk, with no sensible rebuttal, but they keep repeating requests for an insanely narrow requirement that can't be met, because a more general allowance - the one you cite - already covers it.

Bausk - yawn, your OT post reported, ignore.

Thanks for conceding the point, you seem to have no new information or citations so you claim my argument has no standing without actual proof. Ward would be proud.

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have permission from the Psychic power section to cast a psychic power on a unit, and again from a different psyker on the same unit.

Yes you have. And whether you cast it once or twice the power is in effect on the unit and certain things follow from that. It does not matter how many times you cast the power, it still either is on effect or isn't.

(Special rules discussion isn't really relevant. Psychic powers aren't special rules an modifiers are not special rules either. However, It's funny how p.2 mentions only special rules and wargear as things that can modify characteristics, though we can probably safely assume that psychic powers stating stat alterations is permission enough for them to be allowed to do this.)

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

I have permission from the Psychic power section to cast a psychic power on a unit, and again from a different psyker on the same unit.

Yes you have. And whether you cast it once or twice the power is in effect on the unit and certain things follow from that. It does not matter how many times you cast the power, it still either is on effect or isn't.

I'd just like to point this is HYWPI, as the "while this power is in effect" wording could potentially refer to either that instance of the power or the power in and of itself, with no clear indication one way or the other.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

I'd just like to point this is HYWPI, as the "while this power is in effect" wording could potentially refer to either that instance of the power or the power in and of itself, with no clear indication one way or the other.

Yes, I completely agree, I've said it many times in this thread. It was merely offered as an counter to the other reading being the RAW. It could mean either, RAW is inconclusive.

Page 71 of Codex: CSM highlights the vagaries of stacking and non-stacking within that one page. Hysterical Frenzy does not give explicit permission to stack (their terminology is cumulative) their effects while Gift of Contagion and Symphony of Pain all have permission for cumulative effects (stacking the effects of psychic powers).

It is a no win situation one way or the other as the powers that explicitly stack are maledictions or negative effects while the only explicitly nonstacking power is a boon or blessing. Does it seem like intent to only have negative effects stack?

 WarOne wrote:
Page 71 of Codex: CSM highlights the vagaries of stacking and non-stacking within that one page. Hysterical Frenzy does not give explicit permission to stack (their terminology is cumulative) their effects while Gift of Contagion and Symphony of Pain all have permission for cumulative effects (stacking the effects of psychic powers).

This is one reason why I think RAI is non-stacking as default state. They give some powers a specific permission to stack, if all powers always stacked, this wouldn't make sense. (And now somebody will say that they're just reminders they arbitrarily decided to put on some powers but not on other similar powers in the same book.)

 WarOne wrote:
Page 71 of Codex: CSM highlights the vagaries of stacking and non-stacking within that one page. Hysterical Frenzy does not give explicit permission to stack (their terminology is cumulative) their effects while Gift of Contagion and Symphony of Pain all have permission for cumulative effects (stacking the effects of psychic powers).

It is a no win situation one way or the other as the powers that explicitly stack are maledictions or negative effects while the only explicitly nonstacking power is a boon or blessing. Does it seem like intent to only have negative effects stack?

Given that both Blessings and Maledictions used the exact same wording I am inclined to say both are not stackable unless otherwise stated in the powers rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Page 71 of Codex: CSM highlights the vagaries of stacking and non-stacking within that one page. Hysterical Frenzy does not give explicit permission to stack (their terminology is cumulative) their effects while Gift of Contagion and Symphony of Pain all have permission for cumulative effects (stacking the effects of psychic powers).

This is one reason why I think RAI is non-stacking as default state. They give some powers a specific permission to stack, if all powers always stacked, this wouldn't make sense. (And now somebody will say that they're just reminders they arbitrarily decided to put on some powers but not on other similar powers in the same book.)

You forgot page two Crimson. Clearly it justifies everything. (add sarcasm)

 Bausk wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Page 71 of Codex: CSM highlights the vagaries of stacking and non-stacking within that one page. Hysterical Frenzy does not give explicit permission to stack (their terminology is cumulative) their effects while Gift of Contagion and Symphony of Pain all have permission for cumulative effects (stacking the effects of psychic powers).

This is one reason why I think RAI is non-stacking as default state. They give some powers a specific permission to stack, if all powers always stacked, this wouldn't make sense. (And now somebody will say that they're just reminders they arbitrarily decided to put on some powers but not on other similar powers in the same book.)

You forgot page two Crimson. Clearly it justifies everything. (add sarcasm)

Well, page 2 does say that if you are able to resolve Enfeeble twice on a unit the modifiers would stack, the question is whether or not the wording of Enfeeble allows it to stack (or whether that the basic rules allow same name maledictions to stack or not, but considering the non-stacking side have resorted to deliberate misinterpretation and making up rules to prove their side, I'd say the pro-stacking side has won that argument).

GW allowing Hammerhand to stack. Can someone clarify where GW allows this explicitly (i.e. they spell it out for you)?

I want to check something there.

There are plenty of RAI arguments supporting stacking as well.
A few words added to the special rules section make it very clear they couldn't stack. They didn't add these words to the psychic rules despite the rest of the rule being nearly identical.

This question has been asked many times, has been house ruled in almost all major UK tournaments (and apparently US ones too), so GW are definitely aware of the issue, yet they haven't FAQ'd this.

Incorrect Raven, page two only pertains to multiple modifiers not multiple psychic powers. We have not resorted to misinterpretation or making up rules. We are however disputing the validity of multiple same named powers stacking effects based on a clearly thought out interpretation of the rules presented both in the psychic powers section of the brb and multiple codexes power listings.

Page two is not in dispute, only its application as it has not been proven that multiple same named powers have permission to stack. Also permission to target a unit already affected by a power of the same name is not in dispute either, as clearly we have permission to do that also.

The dispute is in permission for same named powers to stack. Until new evidence is provided for the current rules that does not address page two or targeting then all cited evidence presents itself as such powers are inherently unable to.stack.

Ok, I have a question that I would like to put to both sides.

The previous eldar codex had an entry for eldrads staff.
This is an old, now superceded codex, but when 6th came along, was current.

With this staff, eldrad could cast a third (additional) power, which could be a power that he had already used.

So, in 6th terms, lets pretend that eldrad has the power enfeeble.

He casts it on unit a and it takes effect.
He then decides to do it again and casts this 2nd enfeeble at the same unit. He has permission to do this.

Now we know that a psyker cannot cast the same power twice, this piece of wargear, however, allows him to do this.

He has now cast the same power twice and now we need to resolve this second power.

The only place we have true specific instructions on how psychic powers interact is on p68.
We are told different powers are cumulative and that's it.
There we have the true specific (not general) instructions.

Clearly, eldrad has used the same power twice, not two different powers.

The second instance, despite it being an additional casting, is the same power.
Also, despite permission to cast (only in this case granted by the staff), it remains the same power.

We are only told, in the psychic powers section (where you would expect to be told what is relevant) that different powers are cumulative.

Inevitably here then, we have 2 legal castings of the same power, which is not 2 castings of different powers, the second one of which cannot be cumulative with the first, because we are told that different powers are cumulative.

Not only that, but we are told that in the relevant place.

Before anyone moans about this being a pre 6th codex, so is the one with hammerhand.

In context that sounds right. Same power, read as not different, cast twice legally on the same unit with no express permission to accumulate its effects. Nice summation.

 fuusa wrote:
Ok, I have a question that I would like to put to both sides.
*snip*

My RAI interpretation on how the situation you describe would work:
He could cast it twice on the same unit, just as normally two different psykers can cast the same power on one unit. Then Enfeeble is in effect on that unit, just like it would be if it was cast only once. Penalties are applied only once, as number of Enfeebles do not matter, merely whether Enfeeble is on effect or not.

If anyone can actually prove that having a previous malediction cast a unit will affect subsequent maledictions in any way I am perfectly willing to listen, until then I will stick to believing that it could go either way based on the wording of Enfeeble and similar powers.

How about this then, raven.
Try to ignore what has gone on before, if you will and check this out.

 Crimson wrote:
Then Enfeeble is in effect on that unit, just like it would be if it was cast only once. Penalties are applied only once, as number of Enfeebles do not matter, merely whether Enfeeble is on effect or not.

I understand why you say that, but its not the whole story, imo.

There is here, a fundamental breakdown of arguing and logic.
We are in a tree and woods situation and are going blind.

Pg2 tells us how modifiers are cumulative = fine.
Pg 68 tells us how powers are cumulative.
The similarity with special rules wording is just that. Similarity.

Please note, everyone that modifiers are cumulative.
The only thing, really the only thing we are told, is that different powers are cumulative.

Powers are not modifiers, they are powers.
Its same powers that don't stack, not modifiers.

Multiple enfeebles don't stack, because they are powers.
Multiple different powers that caused the same modifier (i.e. -1Tx however many) would stack, because different powers do.
Different power, forcing the same modifier = stack.

Modifiers are not powers, powers are not modifiers, different powers stack all modifiers stack the second modifier (another -1T) will stack if its from a different power.

Further more, if they made it outright illegal to even cast the same power on a target that already was affected by it then you would be unable to extend the duration of those effects or rather sustain the effects.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


sirlynch - so your claim is that it creates a composite special rule? As pointed out, that is an argument belied by the BRB power Endurance, so please drop that assertion - it has no basis in rules.

I cast enfeeble, and two effects happen - -1T and the terrain alteration.

I cast enfeeble again, as per page two apply the second -1T, and apply a second terrain modification - which has no further effect.

All clear and simple rules. Done. Or alternatively people could go with a very convoluted reading, that requires literally making up a restriction from thin air, ignores the rules for multiply modifying stats without cause, etc.

Come on Nos, surely even you can see the difference in one power specifically granting 3 different special rules, and 1 rule with 3 effects?

It's either a modifier OR a special rule? not both, as you admit there is part a rule that won't stack within the power enfeeble, it is a SR.

And there you go projecting the failures of your argument onto others. I'm not making up restrictions, you're just ignoring all the applicable rules from pg 68 & pg 32 that tell us the effects of enfeeble is a SR and therefore won't stack with itself. No basis in the rules really? You mean no rules that you can accept because all the rules point to you being wrong. Because yet again you keep skipping the part of resolving the power what the maledictions section actually says.

Enfeeble is a malediction
maledictions create special rules
pg 32 supports psychic powers creating special rules
pg 32 restriction SR's don't stack with themselves.
Modify based on pg 2, oh look we were only legally given one modifier.

done, it's as simple as that.

Sir Lynch - again, your made up rules and assertions arent actual rules. The holes in your argument has been shown repetition will not win you anything.

-1-1 = -2. As simple, and as blindingly intuitive, as that

Crimson - again you only mention the "RAI" that supports your contention - in your "balanced" responses you neglect the explicit no-stack in the SR section. Given the identical wording, you are claiming they just "forgot" to add this in? Or is it just not necessary to add this statement, making the SR rule redundant (and functionally a reminder)

GW has a habit of placing odd reminders in rules - 5th edition ID on bikes, for instance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir Lynch - again, your made up rules and assertions arent actual rules. The holes in your argument has been shown repetition will not win you anything.

-1-1 = -2. As simple, and as blindingly intuitive, as that

Crimson - again you only mention the "RAI" that supports your contention - in your "balanced" responses you neglect the explicit no-stack in the SR section. Given the identical wording, you are claiming they just "forgot" to add this in? Or is it just not necessary to add this statement, making the SR rule redundant (and functionally a reminder)

GW has a habit of placing odd reminders in rules - 5th edition ID on bikes, for instance.

Funny I seem to be quoting lots of rules while you're resorting to your dogmatic approach of -1-1=-2. Which you can not show through the rules you get.

The holes in your argument has been shown repetition will not win you anything.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir Lynch - again, your made up rules and assertions arent actual rules. The holes in your argument has been shown repetition will not win you anything.

-1-1 = -2. As simple, and as blindingly intuitive, as that

Crimson - again you only mention the "RAI" that supports your contention - in your "balanced" responses you neglect the explicit no-stack in the SR section. Given the identical wording, you are claiming they just "forgot" to add this in? Or is it just not necessary to add this statement, making the SR rule redundant (and functionally a reminder)

GW has a habit of placing odd reminders in rules - 5th edition ID on bikes, for instance.

Funny I seem to be quoting lots of rules while you're resorting to your dogmatic approach of -1-1=-2. Which you can not show through the rules you get.

The holes in your argument has been shown repetition will not win you anything.

Nos thinks page two justifies everything. It's not suprising hes unwilling to achnolage or consider anything that would disprove that.

Citing rules != citing relevant rules. Sometimes a distinction lost on posters.

You have created this concept of a compound special rule, where you dont get to separate the modifier from the special rule. -1T is a modifier, treating terrain as difficult could be a special rule if defined as such.

Intuitive your approach isnt, and thankfully it doesnt lie within rules.

Oh, and it WAS shown in the rules - permission to cast, and resolve, results in -2T. It does not have to explicitly state "psychic power stack" as the basic rules they give you to handle the only "stackable" effect - a series of modifiers - already covers this.

It is why the have an explciit no-stack within SR; that statement is needed to negate the permission that otherwise 2 sources of FC would give +2S

Please, continue to raise rules that have no relevance to the topic, and claim you have "won" as a result. It isnt compelling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Citing rules != citing relevant rules. Sometimes a distinction lost on posters.

You have created this concept of a compound special rule, where you dont get to separate the modifier from the special rule. -1T is a modifier, treating terrain as difficult could be a special rule if defined as such.

Intuitive your approach isnt, and thankfully it doesnt lie within rules.

Oh, and it WAS shown in the rules - permission to cast, and resolve, results in -2T. It does not have to explicitly state "psychic power stack" as the basic rules they give you to handle the only "stackable" effect - a series of modifiers - already covers this.

It is why the have an explciit no-stack within SR; that statement is needed to negate the permission that otherwise 2 sources of FC would give +2S

Please, continue to raise rules that have no relevance to the topic, and claim you have "won" as a result. It isnt compelling.

Please take your own advice, the only way your argument works is if you complete ignore all the relevant rules on pg 68 & pg 32. Not just ignore them though, tell anyone who read them they're not relevant or they're making them up. Including and especially the most relevant rule that psychic powers can cause special rules. They only state that rule twice after all. And by your unintuitive approach you can make a case for FC giving +2S As the bonus to S is a modifier PG2.

So please keep to your own advice:
continue to raise rules that have no relevance to the topic, and claim you have "won" as a result. It isn't compelling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Given the identical wording, you are claiming they just "forgot" to add this in?

Yes, definitely. I find it much more plausible than the idea that they intentionally wrote nonsensical and misleading sentences in both BRB and Chaos Codex. 'Different powers stack' is sensible thing to write only if same don't.

Why bother wasting space with really, really poor attempts at appearing witty when someone took time out of their day to contribute a logical, reasonable, and potentially valuable point?

Fuusa's last post is interesting and people should address it. I would like to know how I should play this.

Well, it is the Chaos codex, maybe it's all part of Tzeentch's plan. Personally, given their track record, I find it entirely plausible that GW wrote nonsensical and misleading sentences, adding probably unnecessary reminders and forgetting to write things they actually should have, just take a look back at the start of 6th, where grounding tests were completely broken and "oh yeah, did we forget to tell you? FMCs can choose to Skyfire just like Flyers".

Rapture wrote:
Fuusa's last post is interesting and people should address it. I would like to know how I should play this.

The problem with said post is this: "Pg 68 tells us how powers are cumulative."
To some extent, yes, it does, it tells us that "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" and that "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions
are always cumulative", fuusa assumes that this tells us that permission is denied for multiple instances of the same power to be cumulative, then bases the rest of this argument off this assumption. The problem is that there is not actually denied permission for the effects of multiple same-name maledictions to be cumulative, so with the basis of fuusa's argument being invalid, the argument itself falls apart.

Interestingly, the line above the first quote tells us how to resolve powers: "Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry." So, we have permission to resolve the power according to how it is written, and we do not have denial, so we go the entry of the specific power. This thread has mainly focussed on the two powers "Hammerhand" and "Enfeeeble", since I don't own the Grey Knights Codex, let's look at Enfeeble.
"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24"..." ok so far, we've got nothing about previous Enfeebles being active on a unit preventing it from being cast, "Whilst the power is in effect..." Uh oh, we've hit a snag, what does "the power" refer to? If it means "this manifestation of Enfeeble" we're good, but if it means "Enfeeble in and of itself" multiple manifestations of Enfeeble are entirely superfluous on the same unit. So which one is it? Well, since the pro-stacking side have apparently set a recording of themselves on repeat and left the room, while the non-stacking side are all busy painting horses with black and white stripes and selling zebras, I doubt we'll get any meaningful conversation on the topic.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Fuusa's last post is interesting and people should address it. I would like to know how I should play this.

The problem with said post is this: "Pg 68 tells us how powers are cumulative."
To some extent, yes, it does, it tells us that "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" and that "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions
are always cumulative", fuusa assumes that this tells us that permission is denied for multiple instances of the same power to be cumulative, then bases the rest of this argument off this assumption. The problem is that there is not actually denied permission for the effects of multiple same-name maledictions to be cumulative, so with the basis of fuusa's argument being invalid, the argument itself falls apart.

Well, in defence of that post, I don't think I am assuming anything, I am parsing the rules, in that section, as they appear.

If we compare the rules for special rules and those of psychic powers, the former does have a specific denial, that's true. But, they are different rules, in different parts of the book, similar wording is irrelevant. They are similar, but inherently different. This part of the argument should be consigned to the coffin (I say that after broaching the point, that powers may in actual fact, be a subset, of the special rule "psyker").

I suggest, that it is entirely possible, to cast psychic powers, using the rules in the psychic powers section.

So, eldrad casts his (first) enfeeble, it takes effect, the power is fully resolved, unit at -1T and terrain effects.
He casts the second at the same unit, he has permission.
The power is then resolved.
It demands -1T and the terrain effects.

As has been proved earlier, a power can be fully resolved and yet have no-effect.
Denial of same power being cumulative, is not required.
The only permission we have is that different powers are cumulative, there is nothing else there at all.

We need these two examples of the same power (they are powers, not modifiers, even if the only outcome of the power is a modifier) to be cumulative in order for both of the modifiers to apply, we have no permission anywhere at all.
We do have permission for multiple modifiers to apply cumulatively, but not until different powers are in effect

Please note, that it is my contention (RULES LAWYER!!!), that 2 enfeebles can not only be cast on a single unit, but fully resolved.
As fully resolved powers can still be in effect, when potentially SOME or even NONE of the actual effects are in play (back to enfeeble vs. vehicles for some) this is fine.

If it can be proven, that these 2 powers are different, it unlocks the only permission that they are cumulative.
The inescapable logic, leads to multiple modifiers being cumulative.

If, however, the 2 powers are the same, we have no-permission to treat them cumulatively, because of the simple fact, that they are powers, not modifiers and so fall under the auspices of powers and not modifiers.

One more, important note.
A unit may be under the effect of multiple same powers, that is not in dispute (permission is granted to cast them).
However, it is the EFFECTS of the powers that rely on the source of the modifiers be different in order to be cumulative.

There is no-permission for it to work in any other way.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Please take your own advice, the only way your argument works is if you complete ignore all the relevant rules on pg 68 & pg 32. Not just ignore them though, tell anyone who read them they're not relevant or they're making them up. Including and especially the most relevant rule that psychic powers can cause special rules.

CAN, not ALWAYS DO

There is a difference, one that you seem to brush over.

sirlynchmob wrote:
They only state that rule twice after all. And by your unintuitive approach you can make a case for FC giving +2S As the bonus to S is a modifier PG2.

Which it would do - apart from the restriction on Special Rules stacking. Oh yeah, the restriction you do not think is necessary

sirlynchmob wrote:
So please keep to your own advice:
continue to raise rules that have no relevance to the topic, and claim you have "won" as a result. It isn't compelling.

Relevant rules posted by me - check. Relevant rules posted by you - nope, still missing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Please take your own advice, the only way your argument works is if you complete ignore all the relevant rules on pg 68 & pg 32. Not just ignore them though, tell anyone who read them they're not relevant or they're making them up. Including and especially the most relevant rule that psychic powers can cause special rules.

CAN, not ALWAYS DO

There is a difference, one that you seem to brush over.

sirlynchmob wrote:
They only state that rule twice after all. And by your unintuitive approach you can make a case for FC giving +2S As the bonus to S is a modifier PG2.

Which it would do - apart from the restriction on Special Rules stacking. Oh yeah, the restriction you do not think is necessary

sirlynchmob wrote:
So please keep to your own advice:
continue to raise rules that have no relevance to the topic, and claim you have "won" as a result. It isn't compelling.

Relevant rules posted by me - check. Relevant rules posted by you - nope, still missing.

In this case it can and does.

Is enfeeble just a modifier? no
OR is enfeeble a special rule? yep as it's not the first one it definitely causes a special rule

see you are arguing against your own arguments, I think that restriction is very necessary and applicable, they way you separate out the modifier from the rule would indicate you think you could stack as many modifiers from furious charge or stealth as you'd like. The way you have to strawman me is just more proof you know you're wrong. You agree that we can't strip just the modifier out of a SR for FC & stealth, so why do you think you can do it with Enfeeble?

Maybe you should read the rest of the rule book past page 2 and see the context the rules I and others have posted. only pg 2 is relevant to resolving psychic powers and not any of the rules for psychic powers & special rules? LOL. But you keep to the conclusion you want and read the rules to support it and ignore all the ones that say otherwise. It's ok, you can admit you're wrong now, your ego will get over it.

sirlynchmob, you keep claiming that Enfeeble is a special rule because it grants a special rule. Does that mean Terminator Armour is a special rule since it grants a special rule?

 Happyjew wrote:
sirlynchmob, you keep claiming that Enfeeble is a special rule because it grants a special rule. Does that mean Terminator Armour is a special rule since it grants a special rule?

That's not what I'm saying.

Terminator armour is wargear, that wargear grants special rules. Because you have this wargear you get these special rules.
Enfeeble is a psychic power, that psychic power inflicts a single SR. (pg 68 maledictions) Because your unit was targeted with and enfeeble resolved, it now has "the power" special rule.

The effect of Enfeeble is a SR left on the unit called for a lack of a better term, "The power". And "the power" does 3 things as part of its power.

That is not true, Enfeeble, or its effects are not special rules, unless you have a quote saying they are.

Special rules are found on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
sirlynchmob, you keep claiming that Enfeeble is a special rule because it grants a special rule. Does that mean Terminator Armour is a special rule since it grants a special rule?

That's not what I'm saying.

So you are not saying that Psychic Powers are special rules? I'm sure I can find numerous examples of you stating otherwise. In fact in your last post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
OR is enfeeble a special rule? yep as it's not the first one it definitely causes a special rule

I underlined where you said Enfeeble is a special rule.