I realize this has been asked before but I couldn't find a solid conclusion... can a Malediction (For example, Enfeeble,) stack upon itself?
To post what I already read...
It comes down to two arguments.
Argument A. What did they mean by 'Different' Maledictions? Is that meant to say that Maledictions of different nams stack? Or that merely Maledictions which are cast separately?
Argument B. Permissive ruleset. Ignoring the argument above, they never say that effects DO NOT stack between multiple castings of the same.

So what's the consensus?

Crap... I meant to add two more options to the poll for the 'Permissive Ruleset' argument.

I think you misunderstand what a "permissive ruleset" is, it's a ruleset where you need permission to do something, rather than having permission to do something unless the rules say otherwise. As far a malediction stacking, the rule is poorly written so there's a bit of ambiguity, but I think the writers of the rules intended it not to stack regardless of where each power is cast from (plus how many psykers are capable of casting the same power multiple times?). This is also the more conservative interpretation and the one which weakens my army the most, so I'll continue to play it like I can't until the ambiguity is cleared up. If I'm wrong, my army just got a new toy to use, if I played it the other way and was wrong I'd have to apologise to every player who had a unit I double Enfeeble'd and instakilled.

I used the term 'Permissive Ruleset' as in 'Is it permissive or not?' But I see your point.
At my LGS we play it that the penalties can stack, but not from the same target. (So you'd need a lot of psykers or a lot of luck to get it stacked.)

To stack they have to be different Maledictions. Two 'Enfeebles' are not different.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
To stack they have to be different Maledictions. Two 'Enfeebles' are not different.

That would be assuming that "Different" actually means "A Malediction other than the same one", quite the logical leap. Since the rulebook does not define different, it falls to us to use English to understand it:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote: 1) used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about:

This is the first definition of "different" given by Oxford Dictionaries. As you can see, this doesn't really clarify the issue, as you could argue that the same malediction wasn't "distinct" from one already cast. However, you could argue it was too.

Oxford Dicionaries wrote: 2) further; additional:

Note the word additional. This shows, I would say, that different (read: additional) Maledictions do stack.

I would argue that yes, Maledictions do stack on themselves provided that they come from different sources.

Iranna.

Mathematically they stack and as long as they are different manifestations of a power the rules state they stack. Even if from the same source (Eldrad for instance casting enfeeble twice). I think Eldrad is the only psyker left who could cast the same power twice anyway and that is likely to change soon so the same source thing will become moot.

As far as I know (an how ive played it so far), Maledictions can stack as long as they have come from two different sources. As far as Eldrad goes, I cant say, I have no experience with Eldar.

You have permission to stack, and no restriction. They stack

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."

Could the rule be more ambiguous? My interpretation is that if two different Psykers cast Enfeeble, the effects stack. My reasoning is mostly based on the fact that there aren't multiple Psychic powers in the BRB that effect the same statistic, so with BRB powers there isn't any other way to stack the -1 penalty to S and T. This is a weak argument however, since it could be that this rule exists so that Enfeeble + Gift of Contagion or something stack.

This is one that requires a FAQ, and until then you'll have to sort it out with your foe ahead of time (worst case, Most Important Rule it) or TO.

I don't really see this as being ambiguous. Two different psykers cast Enfeeble, then it's two different Enfeebles. I may not like it, but that seems to be what the rules say. It seems pretty clear to me.

How about this?

If one psyker has a special rule to use the same power more than once per turn ; are these two powers different?

Yes they are.

The better question is What is considered "different maledictions" and what is the same malediction as defined by the BRB. (Or the English language if it is not defined in the BRB).

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time. If so what is this situation?

Identical twins look the same, but they are different.

I think they stack. It's all about how deep you want to go into it. The more you want to describe powers from 2 sources with the same name the more different they become.

Game mechanics-wise two instances of the same malediction are in fact two instances of the same power. You can try to claim that in RL everything is in some fashion unique and that in some way should translate into the game but such a claim is entirely unsupported. Two instances of enfeeble are in every way identical because the rules only allow it to exist in one manner. No matter the source or the target each is essentially a cut-n-paste copy of the other. Put them both on the same target and there is not way to differentiate between the two at all.

That still doesn't stop them stacking.

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time. If so what is this situation?

And what exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

We know that "that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..." so what does the book mean by the same malediction as opposed to "different maledictions"?

I am really curious if the same malediction is even a ting.

Anyone have any insight?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time. If so what is this situation?

And what exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

We know that "that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..." so what does the book mean by the same malediction as opposed to "different maledictions"?

I am really curious if the same malediction is even a ting.

Anyone have any insight?

It is very possible for a unit of three Zoanthropes to have several of the same maledictions if they all roll entirely on the same power sets. If, for example, they all roll on Biomancy some or all of them may come up with Enfeeble. If they all roll on different ones the unit might end up with enfeeble, terrify, objuration mechanicum and dominate.

But different psykers casting Enfeeble are different castings right?

And therefore they are not the same malediction, they are " different maledictions"?

But different psykers casting Enfeeble are different castings right?

Even the same psyker casting the same power multiple times are different castings. He's rolled different dice for them.

For instance think of a Carnifex with 2 twin linked Devourers firing them both at the same unit. Does he get 12 shots (6 from each different gun) or 6 shots (because it is two instances of the same gun).

 FlingitNow wrote:

But different psykers casting Enfeeble are different castings right?

Even the same psyker casting the same power multiple times are different castings. He's rolled different dice for them.

So again:

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time?

If so what is this situation?

What exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

Can anyone shed some light on these questions. Thanks.

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."


Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source.

But this is GW so gods alone knows what they actually intended by that rule.

Rumbleguts wrote:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."


Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source.

Then the BRB quote would only pertain to differently named maledictions which happen affect the same stat(s).

 DeathReaper wrote:
So again:

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time?

If so what is this situation?

What exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

Can anyone shed some light on these questions. Thanks.

Please stop spamming the thread with the same text over and over again.

Eldrad can have two of the same malediction in effect at the same time. I can't think of any other current examples.

Rumbleguts wrote:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."


Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source.

But this is GW so gods alone knows what they actually intended by that rule.

RAW I would have to agree with this, HIWPI I will admit I do like casting enfeeble twice it is horrible.

What it may mean in regards to bonuses and penalties, if enfeeble is cast on a iron armed psyker the penaltie and bonus are cumulative.

To say two apples are different because they were bought from different shops still does not excuse the fact they are two apples.

I think I'd have to go with the idea that the same named Malediction doesn't stack with another casting of itself regardless of source.

Reasoning is the word 'different' being added to that sentence is not needed otherwise. If you leave it:

"Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative...."

There would be no question as to if Enfeeble would stack, it simply would. Adding 'Different' changes what I believe the rule is saying.

Clearly this just how I look at it, as I am sure rules writers don't necessarily look at it this way. LoL

 Janthkin wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So again:

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time?

If so what is this situation?

What exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

Can anyone shed some light on these questions. Thanks.

Please stop spamming the thread with the same text over and over again.

Eldrad can have two of the same malediction in effect at the same time. I can't think of any other current examples.

Apologies for the repeated question, but it really needs to be addressed, and no one has addressed it. (Except for your Eldrad example, but even if Eldrad casts enfeeble twice, is that the same Malediction?)

I voted no, as that is how I read the sentance.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I think I'd have to go with the idea that the same named Malediction doesn't stack with another casting of itself regardless of source.

Reasoning is the word 'different' being added to that sentence is not needed otherwise. If you leave it:

"Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative...."

There would be no question as to if Enfeeble would stack, it simply would. Adding 'Different' changes what I believe the rule is saying.

Clearly this just how I look at it, as I am sure rules writers don't necessarily look at it this way. LoL

This is how I'd respond to this:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote: 1) used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about:

This is the first definition of "different" given by Oxford Dictionaries. As you can see, this doesn't really clarify the issue, as you could argue that the same malediction wasn't "distinct" from one already cast. However, you could argue it was too.

Oxford Dicionaries wrote: 2) further; additional:

Note the word additional. This shows, I would say, that different (read: additional) Maledictions do stack.

I would argue that yes, Maledictions do stack on themselves.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

This is how I'd respond to this:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote: 1) used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about:

This is the first definition of "different" given by Oxford Dictionaries. As you can see, this doesn't really clarify the issue, as you could argue that the same malediction wasn't "distinct" from one already cast. However, you could argue it was too.

Iranna.

I feel this does clarify the issue as for the terms of the game. I think different comes into play because:

They say cumulative to mean that they do not overide the previous Malediction if different...a different in that it is not a Malediction not already mentioned. But casting a second of the 'same' not 'different' Malediction would not be cumulative.


I hope I'm not too FUBAR in the mind and others don't understand where I'm coming from...LoL

I do not think they stack.

Why would the Chaos codex specifically say that it is cumulative? They wouldn't need to say that if all maledictions stack or were cumulative.

 Mythra wrote:
I do not think they stack.

Why would the Chaos codex specifically say that it is cumulative? They wouldn't need to say that if all maledictions stack or were cumulative.

Just because a piece of information is redundant doesn't mean that it disproves something.

Iranna.

RAW they stack. There is permission to cast more than one power that targets the same unit, permission to resolve the power, and nothing in thepsychic power rules that then restricts this

Permission is given. Absent restriction appearing elsewhere, it stacks.

RaW it stacks, but strongly implied RaI it does not, and HIWPl is that doesn't.

Pyrian wrote:
RaW it stacks, but strongly implied RaI it does not, and HIWPl is that doesn't.

I agree with this. My vote was not stacking.

I keep getting tempted to run 4 enfeebling heralds of nurgle together joined to another unit, but I wont do it till they actually say what they intended.

how do you get 4 enfeebles?

tgf wrote:
how do you get 4 enfeebles?

Lucky rolls, I suppose.

nevermind - fantasy confusion.

4x enfeeble will happen on average 1 out of 81 games with 4 level 2 biomancy only heralds.

Pyrian wrote:
RaW it stacks, but strongly implied RaI it does not, and HIWPl is that doesn't.

I agree with this. In a tournament I'd say 'discuss it with the organizer' but if I held the tournament I'd allow it. In a friendly game I'd suggest they only stack from different sources or some other compromise.

I saw this used by a nurgle player with that spell that reduces I and WS. It seems legit but broken all at the same time.

ok fine, have fun dealing with my strength 10 initiative ten grey knights now

or better yet, CHEAP death cult assasins at I6 and str 10

Hammerhand has always explicitly stacked. In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted. But no one did it because it was so cost inefficient. It is hardly new or Broken.

I don't really understand why people have a problem with it. No one complains when my squad with 5 boltguns stacks and takes 10 rapid fire shots even though they are from the same source. Or a Warwalker with 2 scatter lasers has 8 shots...

What baffles me is peopling saying the think the rules are one thing but would rule the exact opposite in a Tournament and play it differently in a friendly too?!?! Bizarre.

 FlingitNow wrote:
In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted..

If this was true in 5th ed, it would still be true. Since at least 4th edition you could not cast the same power multiple times in a turn without permission.

Comparing multiple modifiers to getting multiple shots is..... inconsistent. If the weapon you were speaking about had a rule that lowered one of a model's characteristics it would be comparable. As it is, having the chance to deal two wounds is much different then making it so all wounds dealt to a model have their wound chances greatly increased or having an enemy unit unable to defend themselves in combat at all.

When dealing with RAI vs RAW and fun vs tournament of course people are going to play different ways depending on what is happening. If I'm playing a fun game I don't bring into it every broken combo I can fit into my points allotment because I'm there to play not to win. Tourney's have to rely on RAW, unless they post rules that state otherwise, just so everyone is on the same page. It's a layered mess which is why the rules state you agree with your opponent before you start on terrain. Don't make assumptions that everyone's RAW or RAI understanding is the same.

My 2 cents is that there is an ambiguity in the rules in the BRB and the chaos codex's wording on it's maledictions stacking is a very clear indicator as to which interpretation of the brb's use of "different" should be used.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted..

If this was true in 5th ed, it would still be true. Since at least 4th edition you could not cast the same power multiple times in a turn without permission.

4th Ed had no impact on 5th Ed. As standard you could only cast 1 power per turn so the BrB did not cover a psyker casting the same power multiple times. Everyone except GK that could cast multiple powers had it specified that they couldn't cast the same power twice. Notice a lack of this wording in the GK codex. However the 6th Ed rule book specifies that a model that can cast multiple powers can only cast each power once. Therefore GK can not do this anymore, but they could in 5th. Not that that is particularly relevant.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted..

If this was true in 5th ed, it would still be true. Since at least 4th edition you could not cast the same power multiple times in a turn without permission.

4th Ed had no impact on 5th Ed. As standard you could only cast 1 power per turn so the BrB did not cover a psyker casting the same power multiple times. Everyone except GK that could cast multiple powers had it specified that they couldn't cast the same power twice. Notice a lack of this wording in the GK codex. However the 6th Ed rule book specifies that a model that can cast multiple powers can only cast each power once. Therefore GK can not do this anymore, but they could in 5th. Not that that is particularly relevant.

Again, no they could not. It was clarified in. the BRB FAQ.

I think the inclusion of the word is the answer. If you take the word different out, then you're simply saying maledictions stack, this would mean you could cast as many of the same ones or different ones as you like. They put in the word different to clarify that you could only, for example put both enfeeble and misfortune on the same unit, but not double of either, they are in no way different.

If you offer me a coke to drink, and I say "could I have something different", and you bring me another coke that wasn't the first one, you would have technically brought me a different drink, but you'd also be willfully misunderstanding what I said.

The inclusion of "different" does not matter, because they left out the restriction "only". The phrase does not say "only different" and interpreting it that way delves into the realm of intent which is impossible to know as the phrase in question contains no actual restrictions on casting and resolving maledictions.

I voted no, since me stance on this issue is well documented in other threads. I'd like to point out, again, that the only time 40k allowed benefits from multiple uses of the same ability to stack was at the end of 5th, right after the last round of 5th Ed FAQs. Once the first 6th Ed FAQs came out, none of those rulings that allowed stacking carried over. The current BRB specifically tells us that unless otherwise noted, benefits ftom multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. The note regarding different Malefictions stacking does not contradict this in any way, and is supported by specific 6th Ed examples of Maledictions with wording in their rules giving permission to stack (i.e., otherwise noted).

SJ

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I think I'd have to go with the idea that the same named Malediction doesn't stack with another casting of itself regardless of source.

Reasoning is the word 'different' being added to that sentence is not needed otherwise. If you leave it:

"Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative...."

There would be no question as to if Enfeeble would stack, it simply would. Adding 'Different' changes what I believe the rule is saying.

Clearly this just how I look at it, as I am sure rules writers don't necessarily look at it this way. LoL

Removing 'different' from that sentence could easily be seen as implying that the effects of casting the same malediction in subsequent turns would stack the effects. i.e. that someone's first casting of Enfeeble on a unit would be -1S, -1T, and the second casting on the same unit (the following turn in all cases except 4th-ed Eldrad) would have a cumulative effect of -2S, -2T.

By adding 'different', to me it suggests that the intent was to prevent what I said above, whilst still allowing instances of multiple different psykers casting the same malediction on a single target and having the effects stack.

Apart from the fact the a blessing cannot be stacked in that way, as the effect ends before the new blessing can be applied.

And the only time the word different comes into play is when applying a maledication/blessing. Maledications and blessings dont care about who or when or what cast it so that is a weak defence saying different psyker different power it is still the same maledication/blessing trying to be cast.

Which doesnt alter that you have general permission to apply both results, and nothing restricting you from doing so.

You are reading a permission (to do something you can already do) and turning it into a restriction. Dont.

RAW they don't stack.

pg 32 to help show intent of this "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." and it's a good thing they clarified it as well for things like stealth or you'd have these same people arguing 4 different sources of stealth would stack.

pg 68 "... different maledictions are always cumulative" It's a shame they didn't also specify under the maledictions as well.

pg 419 how many different powers do we see? 7.

Enfeeble = enfeeble. they are identical in every way, and there is no permission anywhere for identical or just all maledictions to stack.

so you can put 3 or 4 enfeebles on a target, they just suffer -1 as they are not cumulative.

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 32 to help show intent of this "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." and it's a good thing they clarified it as well for things like stealth or you'd have these same people arguing 4 different sources of stealth would stack.

Argument for Intent, Maledictions are not special rules. In other words this rule is completely irrelevant to the discussion and the only reason to bring it up is to distract.

pg 68 "... different maledictions are always cumulative" It's a shame they didn't also specify under the maledictions as well.

How is that denial to stack?

pg 419 how many different powers do we see? 7.

Relevancy?

Enfeeble = enfeeble. they are identical in every way, and there is no permission anywhere for identical or just all maledictions to stack.

So you're not going to resolve the 2nd-nth Enfeeble?

Do we really need this thread again?

determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

You can't compare Stealth and Enfeeble, though. Stealth is a USR, and each USR's effects may only be applied to a unit once. If my unit has five Stealths, it still only gets +1 because that's what Stealth does. Asking "Do you have Stealth?" 5 times doesn't ever change the answer, "Yes." Since I already answered "yes" the first time, no further positive answers are necessary.
Enfeeble is not a USR. Thus, this comparison doesn't solve anything.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do we really need this thread again?

Hell no!
Everyone should Vote in the Poll, leave no comment and never return to this thread again.
Seriously, nothing new is being added that wasn't in the previous thread.

Sirlynch - we have shown permission to resolve, now show denial to resolve.

Given nothing you presented was actually showing this restriction, I assume you have no such argument, and are wrong in claiming "RAW"

If you dsiagree please, find this restriction. Page and paragraph, or concede you are discussing HYWPI

The comparison is relevant because they worded the rules for USR's and maledictions the exact same way.

And then by looking at the reminders of those USR's we see they worded them properly to show stealth does not stack with stealth, and does stack with a different USR shroud.

From here we can see the intent and apply it the same way to maledictions.

Now if only the stacking side had any permission for the same malediction to stack, they might have a point instead of just insisting they're right with no rules to support them.

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

A rule noting that different abilities stack is not a prohibition against the same ability stacking. Affirming permission to do something isn't even an implicit restriction on something else.

Plus, if you look at the phrase in the context of its own sentence, the word different is pretty clearly referring to different castings of the same power, not to the casting of two different powers. Otherwise there wouldn't even be a reason to print that sentence.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

Yes that is what resolving means - but to a specific application, not a general rule which is what you need to state that it cannot stack. You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1, you CAN determine it doesnt stack.

You have misused the term "resolve" yourself, by stating a general result (not stack) is the outcome of the power. No, the outcome of the power is -1T; this never alters.

Now, can you provide any rule restricting Enfeeble from resolving? Page and para.

 Ailaros wrote:
A rule noting that different abilities stack is not a prohibition against the same ability stacking. Affirming permission to do something isn't even an implicit restriction on something else.

Plus, if you look at the phrase in the context of its own sentence, the word different is pretty clearly referring to different castings of the same power, not to the casting of two different powers. Otherwise there wouldn't even be a reason to print that sentence.

the words "different maledictions" means actual maledictions, no mention of casters anywhere on that sentence.

And with permissive rules, you have permission to stack different maledictions, and no permission to stack identical maledictions. SO without implicit permission for enfeeble to stack with itself, it can't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

Yes that is what resolving means - but to a specific application, not a general rule which is what you need to state that it cannot stack. You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1, you CAN determine it doesnt stack.

You have misused the term "resolve" yourself, by stating a general result (not stack) is the outcome of the power. No, the outcome of the power is -1T; this never alters.

Now, can you provide any rule restricting Enfeeble from resolving? Page and para.

Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?
Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

kambien wrote:
Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?

Yes. It'll have little effect on most vehicles as they don't have a S or T to lower. (They'll still treat all terrain as difficult)

Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

Yes, but the malediction rules state that you can't lower the T below 1.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?

Yes. It'll have little effect on most vehicles as they don't have a S or T to lower. (They'll still treat all terrain as difficult)

Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

Yes, but the malediction rules state that you can't lower the T below 1.

So will confirm that the statement

"You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1"

is indeed incorrect

Seriously, close this thread. It has been done numerous times. No ill will towards the OP because it was an innocent question. However, both sides present valid arguments but the rules were written in a way that only RAI can really be applied. No one can present a legit comparison because one doesn't exist. Comparing unlike examples solves nothing and this will just degrade into another caps lock shouting match. SIMPLE ANSWER: this will have to be resolved by your local TO. If its a friendly pickup game than do a dice roll.

Sirlynch - yes, it is permissive. I have permission to cast and resolve the power, and the power reduces toughness by 1.

Find the restriction which states this does not happen a second time.

You have created a requirement "the power must explicitly be allowed to stack" that doesnt exist in the rules, and claiming that is the whole of the rule. It isnt.

If you dont make up a requirement that doesnt exist, multiple castings will each resolve and lower the toughness. As you claim that this does not happen, page and paragraph where permission to cast AND RESOLVE the power is removed.

Page and graph, or retract yoru "RAW" claim, as you have so far failed to provide any rules that restrict the general permission found in the psychic power rules.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?

Yes. It'll have little effect on most vehicles as they don't have a S or T to lower. (They'll still treat all terrain as difficult)

Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

Yes, but the malediction rules state that you can't lower the T below 1.

So will confirm that the statement

"You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1"

is indeed incorrect

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.
Do you have a rule that stops the 2nd enfeeble from resolving?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - yes, it is permissive. I have permission to cast and resolve the power, and the power reduces toughness by 1.

Find the restriction which states this does not happen a second time.

You have created a requirement "the power must explicitly be allowed to stack" that doesnt exist in the rules, and claiming that is the whole of the rule. It isnt.

If you dont make up a requirement that doesnt exist, multiple castings will each resolve and lower the toughness. As you claim that this does not happen, page and paragraph where permission to cast AND RESOLVE the power is removed.

Page and graph, or retract yoru "RAW" claim, as you have so far failed to provide any rules that restrict the general permission found in the psychic power rules.

As you have yet to provide any page or grpah to support you're claim obviously you have no case what so ever, RAW or otherwise. I'll take this as your admission you have no RAW case to make.

I've provided many pages that support my RAW case.

You can resolve the power multiple times, but as they are not cumulative they only lower the S & T by 1.

So will confirm that the statement

"You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1"

is indeed incorrect

rigeld2 wrote:

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.

But according to nos , if you do not apply the -1t , therefore you did not resolve the power.
Your contradicting yourself

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.

But according to nos , if you do not apply the -1t , therefore you did not resolve the power.
Your contradicting yourself

Without a rule saying otherwise, if you don't apply the -1S/T you're not resolving the power.

A model with 1T does have a rule saying otherwise.
Please find a rule saying otherwise to deal with the 2nd-nth power.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.

But according to nos , if you do not apply the -1t , therefore you did not resolve the power.
Your contradicting yourself

Without a rule saying otherwise, if you don't apply the -1S/T you're not resolving the power.

A model with 1T does have a rule saying otherwise.
Please find a rule saying otherwise to deal with the 2nd-nth power.

so then you do agree with me

kambien wrote:determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

kambien wrote:that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

kambien wrote:so then you do agree with me

No, I don't. Absent a specific rule saying otherwise, there's no reason to say that it doesn't stack.

The arguments put forth have changed my opinion, I think multiple castings of a malediction will stack, as you have permission to to use and resolve the psychic power, as per the rules governing maledictions, and nothing explicitly stating that they don't stack.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

kambien wrote:that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

kambien wrote:so then you do agree with me

No, I don't. Absent a specific rule saying otherwise, there's no reason to say that it doesn't stack.

i hope you realize my argument has no bearing on whether is stacks or not right ? It has been solely attacking the misuse of the word resolve

kambien wrote:
i hope you realize my argument has no bearing on whether is stacks or not right ? It has been solely attacking the misuse of the word resolve

It wasn't misused. Not applying the -1 S/T means the power wasn't resolved.
If you have a rule saying that you can't apply the -1S/T for whatever reason, then the power wasn't resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
i hope you realize my argument has no bearing on whether is stacks or not right ? It has been solely attacking the misuse of the word resolve

It wasn't misused. Not applying the -1 S/T means the power wasn't resolved.
If you have a rule saying that you can't apply the -1S/T for whatever reason, then the power wasn't resolved.

Incorrect . No effect is a resolution

Actually it's the absence of a resolution - the power was not resolved because it was not allowed to.

An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its

2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

2 + 2 = 4
it was resolved and the outcome is 4

2 + -2 = 0
it was resolved and the outcome was nothing

Now, I'm not going into the argument on stacking or not again but resolve does have a few varied meanings.
I think it is also incorrect to say that not applying modifiers is the same as not resolving a power. It is not an absolute as there are lots of powers that cannot be fully applied in certain circumstances.
Iron arm on a furioso librarian can only be partially applied, certain maledictions on certain units etc.

It is possible that the use of the word could be meant to conclude the power's effect and apply the modifiers but it could be to render the power completed.
If I use Iron Arm on my dread to get +D3 strength for a combat that will probably last into the opponents turn when I charge with my dread, I cannot apply the effects fully but that isn't the same as not resolving (or not resolving fully). Resolving is just the attempt to apply the effects, whether the effects can be applied is a different thing entirely.

Resolving an argument isn't winning an argument, it's ending it.

Sir lynch - rules were provided, you failed to rebut, and you initial case failed to show that powers do not stack.

Psychic powers say to resolve, you there fore have permission. Now could you find a rule that removes that permission? anything?

Refusing again will be considered concession.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir lynch - rules were provided, you failed to rebut, and you initial case failed to show that powers do not stack.

Psychic powers say to resolve, you there fore have permission. Now could you find a rule that removes that permission? anything?

Refusing again will be considered concession.

Could you clarify what "you there fore have permission" means please

kambien wrote:
An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its

2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

2 + 2 = 4
it was resolved and the outcome is 4

2 + -2 = 0
it was resolved and the outcome was nothing

Your examples agree with me - you've only resolved the ones that have an outcome.
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
What instructions in its entry lead you to not applying the -1S/T and still being resolved?

Cast the power on a dread, can you apply the -1 T? Is the power not resolved if you cannot apply that -1T?

Kambien - sorry, assumed context was clear.

you can then resolve the power, applying -1t unless told otherwise.

HAve you been told otherwise? Sir lynch thinks so, despite having no rules to support their assertion.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Cast the power on a dread, can you apply the -1 T? Is the power not resolved if you cannot apply that -1T?

There's a specific rule (dreads don't have a T to effect) that allows that to not be resolved.
There is no rule stopping the rest of it from being resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its

2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

2 + 2 = 4
it was resolved and the outcome is 4

2 + -2 = 0
it was resolved and the outcome was nothing

rigeld2 wrote:
Your examples agree with me - you've only resolved the ones that have an outcome.

No , only the first example agrees with you , its the only one with no outcome . If you put that in game terms you would be stuck , the game would never end and never move forward otherwise it will indeed become resolved

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.

at no point are you forbidden from resovoling sometihng , in fact you HAVE to resolve before you can cont. or else you can't cont.

rigeld2 wrote:
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

yes , take the instructions and then resolve. applying -1 T indescriminatly is not resolving either .

kambien wrote:
No , only the first example agrees with you , its the only one with no outcome . If you put that in game terms you would be stuck , the game would never end and never move forward otherwise it will indeed become resolved

... What? To be resolved, you must have an outcome. That outcome is determined by the formula. If you follow the formula (the rules in the power) you've resolved it. If not, you haven't.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.

at no point are you forbidden from resovoling sometihng , in fact you HAVE to resolve before you can cont. or else you can't cont.

I successfully Deny the Witch no your power. You are not permitted to resolve that power according to its instructions now.

rigeld2 wrote:
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

yes , take the instructions and then resolve. applying -1 T indescriminatly is not resolving either .

Where did I say indiscriminately?

rigeld2 wrote:
What instructions in its entry lead you to not applying the -1S/T and still being resolved?

Simple
Enfeeble is cast on a devilfish APC that has sensor spines
You cannot apply -1 T , it has no toughness
the power is resolved and has no effect on the unit

You forgot the little addition of "because of an additional exceptional rule". Which, by the way, doesn't exist in the Enfeeble instructions on how to resolve the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kambien - sorry, assumed context was clear.

you can then resolve the power, applying -1t unless told otherwise.

HAve you been told otherwise? Sir lynch thinks so, despite having no rules to support their assertion.

I'm not touching that one with a barge poll, all I am putting forward is that resolving the power and applying the effect are not the same. In general resolving a power causes the application of all of the effects of the rule but not always, that's all I'm putting out there.

I don't agree that the use of "different" in the psyker rules is just a reminder but there is nothing to say that powers don't stack RAW.
Out of interest, in that old debate why was Dominate considered not to stack? I'm just looking at it again and wondering why it doesn't apply, as "this power" must mean this casting right?

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually it's the absence of a resolution - the power was not resolved because it was not allowed to

kambien wrote:
An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its
2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

rigeld2 wrote:
Your examples agree with me - you've only resolved the ones that have an outcome.

kambien wrote:
No , only the first example agrees with you , its the only one with no outcome . If you put that in game terms you would be stuck , the game would never end and never move forward otherwise it will indeed become resolved

rigeld2 wrote:
... What? To be resolved, you must have an outcome.

I've been saying this the entire time , i keep asking if you agree with me on this and you say no.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you follow the formula (the rules in the power) you've resolved it. If not, you haven't.

Incorrect , it is all applicable rules , not just the ones in the power.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.

at no point are you forbidden from resovoling sometihng , in fact you HAVE to resolve before you can cont. or else you can't cont.

rigeld2 wrote:
I successfully Deny the Witch no your power. You are not permitted to resolve that power according to its instructions now.

You are denying the witch after you already failed the roll to deny the witch and we are at the resolve the power step ?

rigeld2 wrote:
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

yes , take the instructions and then resolve. applying -1 T indescriminatly is not resolving either .

rigeld2 wrote:
Where did I say indiscriminately?

never said you did

rigeld2 wrote:
What instructions in its entry lead you to not applying the -1S/T and still being resolved?

Simple
Enfeeble is cast on a devilfish APC that has sensor spines
You cannot apply -1 T , it has no toughness
the power is resolved and has no effect on the unit

rigeld2 wrote:
You forgot the little addition of "because of an additional exceptional rule". Which, by the way, doesn't exist in the Enfeeble instructions on how to resolve the power.

There doesn't need to be "because of a addictional exceptional rule" because resolving covers that.

I came across something yesterday that changed my mind about this debate. I was leaning on the side of "different" meaning that a different caster, casting the same power on the same unit, would stack.

In the Chaos Space Marine codex, the Nurgle power Gift of Contagion clarifies that the effects of repeated castings of this power can stack. My logic is that there would be no need to allow for repeated castings of this power to stack if this was the rule already. Thus, "different" means that different maledictions stack - i.e., the effects of Enfeeble stack with Gift of Contagion, dropping Str by -2, etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir lynch - rules were provided, you failed to rebut, and you initial case failed to show that powers do not stack.

Psychic powers say to resolve, you there fore have permission. Now could you find a rule that removes that permission? anything?

Refusing again will be considered concession.

this is your idea of a rule?
from page 1 of this thread:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"You have permission to stack, and no restriction. They stack "

funny where is your page number or paragraph?

where is this permission to stack you keep claiming but isn't in the BRB?

I know you keep failing to comprehend this for whatever reason. Yes, you can resolve multiple enfeebles, you do not have permission for them to stack. ergo no matter how many times a unit is enfeebled it's just the -1. as the results are non cumulative because enfeeble = enfeeble they are not different (pg 68)

As you can not cite permission for stacking trying to find rules to the contrary is irrelevant. or can you find a rule that says I can't flip the table so all your models fall onto the floor and I win as you have no models on the table?

Sir lynch, I guess you review their use of maths, approximate on page two, and note that x-1 -1 does iindeed result in x-2

You have permission to resolve the power. Your made up rule means you do not resolve the power

ANd, just to reiterate, NONE OF YOUR POSTS contained a single rule that shows a restriction on stacking, nor does it show a requirement exists for a specific rule to allow basic maths, which we know the rulebook uses, to operate

In short, the rulebook uses basic axiomatic maths. Thus, by default 1+1 does equal 2, whereas you claim you need a specific rule allowing this basic maths to operate.

Given you cannot provide such a rule, your concession is considered proffered and accepted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir lynch, I guess you review their use of maths, approximate on page two, and note that x-1 -1 does iindeed result in x-2

You have permission to resolve the power. Your made up rule means you do not resolve the power

ANd, just to reiterate, NONE OF YOUR POSTS contained a single rule that shows a restriction on stacking, nor does it show a requirement exists for a specific rule to allow basic maths, which we know the rulebook uses, to operate

In short, the rulebook uses basic axiomatic maths. Thus, by default 1+1 does equal 2, whereas you claim you need a specific rule allowing this basic maths to operate.

Given you cannot provide such a rule, your concession is considered proffered and accepted.

blah blah blah, you still need permission for x-1 to become x-2, you don't have any.

so you keep insisting on rules that say you can't do something when you never were given specific permission to do it.

you're quoting math? wow, and you thought quoting a similar rule in a different section was not applicable.

you have refuted none of my rules that support my claim, and have yet to provide any to show that similar psychic maledictions stack.

so I guess you're argument goes "I have no rules but I claim my warped idea is RAW" gotcha. I accept your concession.

sirlynchmob wrote:
blah blah blah, you still need permission for x-1 to become x-2, you don't have any.

Incorrect.

Page 2 outlines how math works in 40K.

You have permission to cast enfeeble on a unit.

You also have permission to cast enfeeble, from a different psyker, on the same unit.

There is the permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
blah blah blah, you still need permission for x-1 to become x-2, you don't have any.

Incorrect.

Page 2 outlines how math works in 40K.

You have permission to cast enfeeble on a unit.

You also have permission to cast enfeeble, from a different psyker, on the same unit.

There is the permission.

True, stacking is a naturally occuring thing with maths. You use maths, you get a stacking effect.
but apparently:
4-1-1 = 3
And not 2, but there hasn't been a decent reason as to why yet.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have permission to resolve the power.

as pointed out multiple times in this thread , permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to stack

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have permission to resolve the power.

as pointed out multiple times in this thread , permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to stack

Right, that comes from basic math, and as the 40k rules follow basic math then we know that 4-1-1=2

Sirllynch - so according to you you need permission for (X-1)-1 = X-2? Page 2 shows that they use basic axiomatic maths, so this permission has been given

You still have no rules argument that actually creates this mythical requirement for 1+1 to equal 2 only when specifically allowed

Thanks for demonstrating your basic misunderstanding of the rules, as it shows arguing will be pointless - given you deny that 4-1-1 is 2, there can be no common ground.

I'm sure someone has already brought up the corresponding texts on page 32 regarding special rules...

Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative

This is a good example of GW's 'Different', and how the 'No' crowd read it really. I wouldn't say it is absolute, but its hard to fault the logic.

Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative

[edit] To clarify, for people who read the second quote as a restriction like the first, being able to cast the power has no bearing - the second quote is stated in the Resolving section.

 Nem wrote:
I'm sure someone has already brought up the corresponding texts on page 32 regarding special rules...

Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative

This is a good example of GW's 'Different', and how the 'No' crowd read it really. I wouldn't say it is absolute, but its hard to fault the logic.

Why bring up special rules when the wording is not the same? It's been addressed - it's irrelevant.

Some people keep equating resolving the power with applying the effect. I think this is a mistake. Powers tend to say 'while this power is in effect..." If we understand this to mean the power in general, instead of individual instances of that power, the same powers would indeed not stack. This way the power is resolved making the power being in effect, however power is 'in effect' regardless of whether you have one or seven instances of it in effect, so multiple castings have no further impact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirllynch - so according to you you need permission for (X-1)-1 = X-2? Page 2 shows that they use basic axiomatic maths, so this permission has been given

You still have no rules argument that actually creates this mythical requirement for 1+1 to equal 2 only when specifically allowed

Thanks for demonstrating your basic misunderstanding of the rules, as it shows arguing will be pointless - given you deny that 4-1-1 is 2, there can be no common ground.

and if the standard set by USR's is irrelevant, than so is your "because math" argument.

and because math 5+2=7 right?

you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

you have permission for 2 different powers with a -1 effect to go 4-1-1=2 as clearly spelled out on pg 68, and using USR's as supporting evidence. What do you think that paragraph on pg 68 means? why is it in there? If what you claim is true, that paragraph would not be needed, but it's there. Oh ya, I forget you want to ignore that rule because it shows you're wrong.

Is English, your second langauge? You need to quite projecting your faulty logic onto me.
"You still have no rules argument that actually creates this mythical requirement for 1+1 to equal 2 only when specifically allowed" permissive rule set remember? you seem to keep forgetting that part.

whats next you'll use an argument for the law of large numbers and statistics to say that if you roll 40 dice and need 5's to hit, you can only ever hit 7 times. because math?

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

"No it doesn't." what? What doesn't?

The rules don't define that improving a save means lowering it? Page 19.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

Adding to a save makes it lower, by the rules.Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

This is getting ridiculous.

This same topic has come up, run 12 pages, and been locked several times. Now we have people throwing out established RAW from other mechanics. This is trolling and it's unproductive. If you really think GTG in area terrain makes your saves worse, you should not be taking part in this rules forum.

There are no actual rules as written prohibiting maledictions from being cumulative. If you disagree, discuss it with your opponent or TO. Over 20 combined pages on this topic haven't swayed many people's opinions, continuing with these insane tangents won't shed any new light on the situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

"No it doesn't." what? What doesn't?

The rules don't define that improving a save means lowering it? Page 19.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

Adding to a save makes it lower, by the rules.Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

Take your own advice.

you notice it uses the word increase in your example. G2G in area terrain does not. you're assuming it does and that is not RAW. Just like you're assuming enfeeble stacks with itself, and based on the entire rule section of maledictions (that you choose to ignore saying it's irrelevant) you're wrong. Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

"No it doesn't." what? What doesn't?

The rules don't define that improving a save means lowering it? Page 19.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

Adding to a save makes it lower, by the rules.Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

Take your own advice.

you notice it uses the word increase in your example. G2G in area terrain does not. you're assuming it does and that is not RAW. Just like you're assuming enfeeble stacks with itself, and based on the entire rule section of maledictions (that you choose to ignore saying it's irrelevant) you're wrong. Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

Page 91 wrote:Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

rigeld2 wrote:

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

read page 2 again, your first sentence it wrong.

you'll also note the lack of the word improve or increase on pg 91.

Wow. Just wow. I voted no. I baffled as to why different has any other meaning than what we all know it to be.

Even the Oxford dictionary doesn't have a problem. Different or distinct from something already mentioned.

If I mention to use enfeeble, then my buddy mention the spell enfeeble, referencing the same spell card how are they different?

If it was mention in the brb that manifested by different psyker's are cumulative I'd see no problem. It doesn't say that so still no.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

read page 2 again, your first sentence it wrong.

you'll also note the lack of the word improve or increase on pg 91.

Are you ignoring 19? Of course you are - its proving your statements incorrect.

I'd suggest avoiding debate with sir lynch, given they can only cling to that position by ignoring defined rules and throwing insults. It's nit productive to argue with someone that states 4-1-1 is 3

We can do without the digs and squabbling please chaps, no need to be rude to someone who doesn't agree with you.

In all fairness, the BRB does not specify X-e-e-e = N. The BRB tells us X-e = N where "e" = a subset of all uses of "e". This means that unless otherwise noted, X-e and X-e-e-e-e both = N because "e" is a concurrent value, not a cumulative value. The rules do not support e+e+e = anything other than "e" without specific permission, yet does support e+f+g = e+f+g because "e", "f", and "g" are different subsets with specific permission to cumulate each other (but not with themselves). This is further supported by the existence of subset "h" which does have specific permission to be cumulative with itself. The premiss that 40k uses only basic math is false due to the use of subsets being concurrent while requiring permission to be cumulative.

We find these advanced math rules on pages 2, 32, 68, and 419.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

read page 2 again, your first sentence it wrong.

you'll also note the lack of the word improve or increase on pg 91.

Are you ignoring 19? Of course you are - its proving your statements incorrect.

No you're just assuming what you want it to say. does pg 91 say you improve your save? no, ergo pg 19 doesn't apply as we are not improving the score we are adding 2 to it. 5+7=7. RAW & basic math.

right nos?

@nos, I'm ignoring no rules, you're holding the position that we should ignore the rules on pg 68, we should ignore the identical rules from pg 32. just so you can ignore all the rules that apply and say "because math" If you can't cite rules from the applicable section under psychic powers, then you have no case. Again why have the rule for different maledictions being given permission to stack if all maledictions stack anyways?

sirlynchmob wrote:
No you're just assuming what you want it to say. does pg 91 say you improve your save? no, ergo pg 19 doesn't apply as we are not improving the score we are adding 2 to it. 5+7=7. RAW & basic math.

Page 91 says to add 2. Page 19 says that when you add 2 you're improving by 2. When you improve a save by 2 do you increase or decrease the save number?

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No you're just assuming what you want it to say. does pg 91 say you improve your save? no, ergo pg 19 doesn't apply as we are not improving the score we are adding 2 to it. 5+7=7. RAW & basic math.

Page 91 says to add 2. Page 19 says that when you add 2 you're improving by 2. When you improve a save by 2 do you increase or decrease the save number?

Come on Mr RAW who still argued about models out of LOS still empties the wound pool for blast weapons even after the latest faqs.

it says "+2" it never uses the words improve. if the word improve was there you'd be right. but its not. You're assuming improving which is not RAW.

it's the same thing with this enfeeble argument, you & nos are starting with the conclusion you want and looking for ways to support it. And the best you have is "math"

sirlynchmob wrote:
it says "+2" it never uses the words improve. if the word improve was there you'd be right. but its not. You're assuming improving which is not RAW.

Page 91 doesn't.
Page 19 does. Perhaps you'd like to read it? I quoted it for you on the last page.
edit: Page 19 shows that adding to a save improves it by lowering it.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
it says "+2" it never uses the words improve. if the word improve was there you'd be right. but its not. You're assuming improving which is not RAW.

Page 91 doesn't.
Page 19 does. Perhaps you'd like to read it? I quoted it for you on the last page.
edit: Page 19 shows that adding to a save improves it by lowering it.

+2 can be a positive or negative modifier. pg 2.

you're assuming it to be positive. Non-RAW.

and when we look at pg 2 and negatively modifying a score by adding to it, what is the only characteristic that gets worse when you add to it? saves.

So if were going to enforce math first over the rules, then any +x to saves makes them worse. Because math says 5+2=7, and pg 2 agrees.

edit: pg 91 is more specific than pg 19.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and another thing can we look at pg 418 brb
"it should be noted that different psykers in the same army can have the SAME psychic powers."

ie enfeeble from psyker A is the same, not different, as enfeeble from psyker B.

sirlynchmob wrote:
+2 can be a positive or negative modifier. pg 2.

you're assuming it to be positive. Non-RAW.

By definition +2 is positive and not negative.

A negative would be -2...

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
+2 can be a positive or negative modifier. pg 2.

you're assuming it to be positive. Non-RAW.

By definition +2 is positive and not negative.

A negative would be -2...

What happened to basic math? That thing you're whole argument hinges on?

5+2=??? Care to answer here?

+2 is a positive modifier.
-2 is a negative modifier.

Basic Math.

rigeld2 wrote:
+2 is a positive modifier.
-2 is a negative modifier.

Basic Math.

and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

By the way saves work, a save of 5+ and a +2 modifier brings that save to a 3+ as per the way the rules work for saves.

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

This is the odd characteristic as lower is better (Improved) and a +2 is an improvement. a -1 would bring a 5+ save to a 6+ because of the rules for saves.

sirlynchmob, Stop ignoring the rules about saves being improved when they are lowered. Adding 2 to a save lowers the save, subtracting one from a save raises it by one...

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
+2 is a positive modifier.
-2 is a negative modifier.

Basic Math.

and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

Except for the rules you keep ignoring. Welcome to the ignore function since you refuse to accept it.

sirlynchmob wrote:


and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

Except that you're ignoring page 2:

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

Unless of course, you would play it that by casting "Protect" on my unit of Guardians they now have a 6+ armour save and by casting "Jinx" on your Tactical Marines they now have a 2+ armour save?

Iranna.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
+2 is a positive modifier.
-2 is a negative modifier.

Basic Math.

and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

Except for the rules you keep ignoring. Welcome to the ignore function since you refuse to accept it.

I'm ignoring nothing.

You keep adding the word "improve" where it doesn't exist. care to show me the word "improve" on pg 91? I'll wait.

we see on pg 2 how to add up the numbers. ie basic math.

As we see how "basic math" starts falling apart when we start applying it like pg 2 says, there goes the cornerstone for the stacking argument.

"Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their Saves by +1 or +2 or more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+." (19)

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their Saves by +1 or +2 or more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+." (19)

So you're saying we shouldn't use basic math as a guidance on how to resolve numerical problems? sounds good.

We should look at the rules for the actions we are taking and then modify the math based on what is written? Great.

so as 5+2 =/= 7, we can see from the entire section on psychic powers that you don't have permission for the 2nd enfeeble to stack with any other enfeebles as they are not different powers.

Glad were finally on the same page.

So you're turning a reminder into a restriction? Impressive. Able to ffind any rules to back up your assertion? Would help your argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you're turning a reminder into a restriction? Impressive. Able to ffind any rules to back up your assertion? Would help your argument.

From the side that says "I don't have a single RAW so therefore math" now that's impressive. The rules keep getting quoted, and you have to keep ignoring the rules and the context of them so you can say "math"

No,actually I say "maths" , which we know they use. Or are you still claiming with a serious argument that 4-1-1=3?

YIur rules don't actually state "you must have explicit permission to stack", which is what you are claiming they do.

We gave the raw, you choosing to pretend it doesn't exist isn't a problem for this side, just you

Given you still cannot prove your requirement exists in actual, non made up out of thin air rules, I assume you have conceded you are only proposing a houserule. If you couof follow the tenets (for once this tthread) and Mark your argument as such, we can know not to try to argue it from a rules basis

sirlynchmob wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't use basic math as a guidance on how to resolve numerical problems? sounds good.

Not at all. I am saying that, because of the way saving throw values work in reverse of all other stats, that we still should use basic math as a guidance on how to resolve numerical problems, but in the case of saving throw values any improvement (I.E. anything that is +1) will lower that value as that is how saving throw values work, which is contrary to every other characteristic.

We should look at the rules for the actions we are taking and then modify the math based on what is written? Great.

Only when it tells you that the math works differently, like in the case of Saving Throw Values.

so as 5+2 =/= 7, we can see from the entire section on psychic powers that you don't have permission for the 2nd enfeeble to stack with any other enfeebles as they are not different powers.

Glad were finally on the same page.

1) That math is only for Saving throw values.

2) You do have permission for the 2nd enfeeble to stack with any other enfeebles, as they are different enfeebles because there is a different caster.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So you're saying we shouldn't use basic math as a guidance on how to resolve numerical problems? sounds good.

Not at all. I am saying that, because of the way saving throw values work in reverse of all other stats, that we still should use basic math as a guidance on how to resolve numerical problems, but in the case of saving throw values any improvement (I.E. anything that is +1) will lower that value as that is how saving throw values work, which is contrary to every other characteristic.

We should look at the rules for the actions we are taking and then modify the math based on what is written? Great.

Only when it tells you that the math works differently, like in the case of Saving Throw Values.

so as 5+2 =/= 7, we can see from the entire section on psychic powers that you don't have permission for the 2nd enfeeble to stack with any other enfeebles as they are not different powers.

Glad were finally on the same page.

1) That math is only for Saving throw values.

2) You do have permission for the 2nd enfeeble to stack with any other enfeebles, as they are different enfeebles because there is a different caster.

pg 418 brb, it says you're wrong. no where is it ever stated or implied enfeeble stacks with itself, and they went and printed it 3 times that it takes different powers to be cumulative.
"it should be noted that different psykers in the same army can have the SAME psychic powers."

Nos, where is your rule quote that proves that 'this power' in description of the powers refers to individual instances of the power instead of the power in general?

So, ignoring people who aren't even remotely saying anything worth listening to, I still don't get it.

The rules say that when you cast a psychic power that it has a certain effect. In the case of a power that reduces T by one, that means that you take their current T, and then subtract one. It doesn't matter how a model came about their current T (for example, if their T is their base T, or if it was buffed to be a higher T by a mark or by iron arm (or whatever), or if it's already been debuffed by something). You take their current T and subtract.

When a power goes off, it has an effect. That's what the rules say. The other side of the argument here has to provide some sort of definitive ruling that a psychic power doesn't have its stated effect if the target has already been altered by a different instance of an effect.

That's the anti-stacking argument that needs to be made. So far, nobody has seriously made it.

 Ailaros wrote:

When a power goes off, it has an effect. That's what the rules say.

No it isn't. Psychic powers that could stack are worded 'whilst this power is in effect' or something similar. Result of successful casting of Jinx is that Jinx is now in effect. Result of Jinx being in effect is the target unit having -1 to their armour saves. Jinx is equally in effect whether there was one or three instances of it in effect.

What the stacking side has to do, is to prove that 'this power' refers to individual instances of the power, instead of the power in general. They can't do that.

Actually you have to prove that you don't resolve simultaneously, but concurrently.

PLesee find such proof. Page and para.

Lynch - again you are taking permission and creating a restriction from itm. Basic logic fail there. Same one we've been telling you about that you remain deaf to.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually you have to prove that you don't resolve simultaneously, but concurrently.

PLesee find such proof. Page and para.

Why? You can't cite any rules to support your interpretation either. Give me the page where it tells that 'this power' refers to individual instance of the power.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as we apparently are having this thread again, I'd finally like to hear peoples views on Dominate stacking. Some people felt it would not stack while other maledictions would, but no one was ever able to articulate reasonable argument why this would be the case.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually you have to prove that you don't resolve simultaneously, but concurrently.

PLesee find such proof. Page and para.

Lynch - again you are taking permission and creating a restriction from itm. Basic logic fail there. Same one we've been telling you about that you remain deaf to.

It's not that I'm deaf to what you're saying, you're just wrong.

Permissive rule set right? so you need permission for the same power to stack, we can find permission for different powers to stack. Everything in the psychic powers chapter supports this conclusion.

Trying to say because math is just dumb, as we can see from the rules, the rules can and do change how basic math works. I'd also like to point out pg 2 does not account for subtraction, so you can't do that either.

If you only have permission for a (-1) but not a second (-1) then you are left with 4-1=3. And if the rules don't dictate the math than any +x to armor saves means just that, 5+2=7. You remember, specific > general.

You really don't have a rule to stand on to support your argument, if you did you could at least quote something from the psychic powers chapter to show how your version of the math should be applied.

Please explain how the rules for psychic powers in any way supports your conclusions? explain why if you were right they would waste 5 sentences to say the opposite of what you say?

you know those rules you keep ignoring, dismissing and being deaf to, because they show you to be wrong.

"a psyker cannot attempt to manifest the psychic power more than once"
ergo there never can be (according to you) any instance of the same power affecting a unit. Which would make these next 3 sentences a waste of space and ink. But here they are.


rule: "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"
note: "the bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative"
note: "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative"

Seems like an awful waste of ink if you were right, but it seems like they're trying to make a point here. A point like they made on pg 32, "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative. " It's not so much a point, as it's a theme for the whole book. or is that on your to be ignored list and different sources of the same special rule can stack as well?

Then pg 418 dismisses your notion that different psychers count for the same power being different
"psychers in the same army can have the same powers"

See different psychers same power.

and you dismiss all this with your fingers in your ears going "lalalalla" "math"
I look forward to your next post ignoring and being deaf to all of this to once again 4-1-1=2 so therefore your right.

Permissive rule set is correct.

They stack because of Page 2 modifiers, and the fact that you can cast enfeeble from two different psykers.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Permissive rule set is correct.

They stack because of Page 2 modifiers, and the fact that you can cast enfeeble from two different psykers.

Then end the sentence with it's the same power pg 418, and as it's the same power it doesn't stack because rules trump math. Or admit because of pg 2 modifiers, 5+2=7.

so I win I have more rules, and more specific rules as they come from the psychic power section, ergo enfeeble does not stack with enfeeble. If you'd like to keep playing please answer any of the questions I posted to you for your explanation.

5+2 does =7, except for Save values which clearly and explicitly work in reverse.

Stop ignoring the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Permissive rule set is correct.

They stack because of Page 2 modifiers, and the fact that you can cast enfeeble from two different psykers.

What the number of psykers has to do with anything?

 DeathReaper wrote:
5+2 does =7, except for Save values which clearly and explicitly work in reverse.

Stop ignoring the rules.

Still can't answer any of the questions I asked?

I'm not ignoring the rules, but if pg 2 trumps the rest of the brb, how does pg 2 tell you to do modifiers? 5+2=7 math & pg 2 agree. and pg 2 apparently (from your point of view) trumps the rest of the book. pg 2 says its 7, nothing on pg 19 shows it to do math differently, ergo 7. Now can you show RAW where the word improves negates math & pg 2 and allows for inverse math? nope. we can argue the word improve and that is HIWPI, but RAW and pg 91 does not use the word improve therefore 7. Or can we agree that the more specific rules dictate how the general math should function?

The math on Page 2 is the basis in which the rules were written.

Save values are the exception to the rule.

Please explain how the rules for psychic powers in any way supports your conclusions?

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

Yes. When you first cast it the power will be in effect. When you cast is second time, it still is in effect. Nothing changes. You need a rule that says that 'this power' or 'the power' in psychic power descriptions means individual instance of the power. There is no such rule.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

Yes. When you first cast it the power will be in effect. When you cast is second time, it still is in effect. Nothing changes. You need a rule that says that 'this power' or 'the power' in psychic power descriptions means individual instance of the power. There is no such rule.

A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more.than once each turn - even if the manifestation attempt is not successful.

I cast Enfeeble with Tervigon 1.
Tervigon 2 also rolled Enfeeble.

If you treat the 2 powers the same, the second Tervigon cannot even attempt to manifest it.
"this power" must reference the specific casting of the power, and not every attempt to layer the power. The latter would cause the two Tervigons to not cast the same power, even at different targets.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The math on Page 2 is the basis in which the rules were written.

Save values are the exception to the rule.

Please explain how the rules for psychic powers in any way supports your conclusions?

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

so show your math for the exception. pg # please and don't say 19 we know its not there.
since pg 2 trumps all, can I stack stealth from IC-A and stealth from IC-B, with stealth (ruins)? because pg 2 math 4+1+1+1=1 but capped at 2+. They're different source of the same USR which makes them different USR's, and different USR's are cumulative right?

and as pg 418 says which you keep ignoring it's the same power, enfeeble from psyker A is the exact same as the enfeeble from psyker B, and the rules allow for different powers to stack. So as you need the rules so you know what math to use, we see from those other rules on pg 68 which you're ignoring that only different powers have permission to be cumulative. so the second one does not create a second modifier.

It's ok, you can admit you're wrong on this one.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more.than once each turn - even if the manifestation attempt is not successful.

I cast Enfeeble with Tervigon 1.
Tervigon 2 also rolled Enfeeble.

If you treat the 2 powers the same, the second Tervigon cannot even attempt to manifest it.
"this power" must reference the specific casting of the power, and not every attempt to layer the power. The latter would cause the two Tervigons to not cast the same power, even at different targets.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. They are two different psykers, that rule doesn't affect them in any way.

However, you remind us again that if two instances of the same power are different, even one psyker can cast same power twice, as different instances of same power are not same!

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more.than once each turn - even if the manifestation attempt is not successful.

I cast Enfeeble with Tervigon 1.
Tervigon 2 also rolled Enfeeble.

If you treat the 2 powers the same, the second Tervigon cannot even attempt to manifest it.
"this power" must reference the specific casting of the power, and not every attempt to layer the power. The latter would cause the two Tervigons to not cast the same power, even at different targets.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. They are two different psykers, that rule doesn't affect them in any way.

And 2 powers cast by different psykers are different...

However, you remind us again that if two instances of the same power are different, even one psyker can cast same power twice, as different instances of same power are not same!

2 powers cast by the same psyker are the same. 2 powers cast by different psykers are different.

@rigeld 2, pg 418 still says your wrong

sirlynchmob wrote:
so show your math for the exception. pg # please and don't say 19 we know its not there.

It is there, but you ignore it when I post it. Maybe this time you will understand it as I will go a little more in-depth.

"Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their Saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+." (19)

It has been established that the lower the save the better it is and a higher value is worse. It also helps establish that improved means lower.

Under Focus Fire page 18 "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated." Worse = Higher, so the reverse of lower = better is true as well.

"A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+" Page 2

Better = lower. Improved = lower, and worse = higher.

Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.

Please do not ignore it this time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
so show your math for the exception. pg # please and don't say 19 we know its not there.

It is there, but you ignore it when I post it. Maybe this time you will understand it as I will go a little more in-depth.

"Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their Saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+." (19)

It has been established that the lower the save the better it is and a higher value is worse. It also helps establish that improved means lower.

Under Focus Fire page 18 "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated." Worse = Higher, so the reverse of lower = better is true as well.

"A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+" Page 2

Better = lower. Improved = lower, and worse = higher.

Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.

Please do not ignore it this time.

I'm still not but that doesn't override your pg 2 math either. and you forgot on pg 2 adding to characters can affect them negatively.

This is your assumption,
Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.
clearly a HIWPI argument.

and not RAW.

And again it just proves my point that: the rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, not the other way around. You agree rules trumps pg 2 math for armor saves, and disagree for psychic powers. Please pick one and stick with it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm still not but that doesn't override your pg 2 math either.

This is your assumption,
Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.
clearly a HIWPI argument.

and not RAW.

And again it just proves my point that: the rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, not the other way around. You agree rules trumps pg 2 math for armor saves, and disagree for psychic powers. Please pick one and stick with it.

1) It is not my assumption. The quotes prove that Increasing a save lowers its value. Not HIWPI, It is actual RAW if you do not ignore the quotes.

2) The rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, but the rules for saves specifically tell you how to increase armor saves, which is contrary to the basis in which the rules are written.

3) The rules for Psychic powers do not say anything to the contrary about page 2, so you have to follow the most basic order of operations.

4) I am picking one, I am following the RAW, which works one way for saves and the revers for everything else as per the exceptions for save values.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm still not but that doesn't override your pg 2 math either.

This is your assumption,
Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.
clearly a HIWPI argument.

and not RAW.

And again it just proves my point that: the rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, not the other way around. You agree rules trumps pg 2 math for armor saves, and disagree for psychic powers. Please pick one and stick with it.

1) It is not my assumption. The quotes prove that Increasing a save lowers its value. Not HIWPI, It is actual RAW if you do not ignore the quotes.

2) The rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, but the rules for saves specifically tell you how to increase armor saves, which is contrary to the basis in which the rules are written.

3) The rules for Psychic powers do not say anything to the contrary about page 2, so you have to follow the most basic order of operations.

4) I am picking one, I am following the RAW, which works one way for saves and the revers for everything else as per the exceptions for save values.

1) pg 2 says you can affect characteristics negatively by adding to them. so it is still raw 5+2 =7 even for armor saves. Better or worse is irrelevant as pg 2 demonstrates how to do the math.

2) RAW for psychic powers says under resolving powers "different' & "cumulative" so basing the formula on the rules presented, we see that you only get the first modifier, not the second.

3) basic order of operation 4-1=3 you don't get anymore -1's from any more enfeeble after that to put into any equations.

/edit oh and what about stealth stacking? if we follow the vote here, can I stack them as well?

1) I have proven that save values are an exception to the rule.

2) you have not proven that your assertion is true.

3) basic order of operation 4-1-1=2 do not ignore Page 2

As for Stealth, It explicitly tells us that "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." (32) (Psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers).

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) I have proven that save values are an exception to the rule.

2) you have not proven that your assertion is true.

3) basic order of operation 4-1-1=2 do not ignore Page 2

As for Stealth, It explicitly tells us that "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." (32) (Psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers).

1 I agree, rules dictate math, otherwise basic order of operation 5+2=7.

2) I have, you ignore it.

3) see 2, you need to find permission for the same power to stack otherwise you only get the (-1) not the second. Because only different has permission to stack, same does not.

stealth, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative. here they state by your definition of different, they stack. Plus with your idea of 3 they stack. And they're not the same special rule, you have "stealth" and "stealth (ruins)"

You still don't see how your using pg 2 differently depending on the outcome you want.

That part about stealth would be true if the stealth rule did not state "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being I point better than normal." (42)

Does the unit contain "at least one model with this special rule" If yes then cover is 1 point better.

If 5 models have Stealth does the unit contain "at least one model with this special rule" If yes then cover is 1 point better.

So Stealth, by virtue of the Stealth rule, does not stack.

To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:
[
And 2 powers cast by different psykers are different...

2 powers cast by the same psyker are the same. 2 powers cast by different psykers are different.

Based on what? This is completely made up, with no basis on absolutely anything in the rules. This is getting really ludicrous.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And 2 powers cast by different psykers are different...

2 powers cast by the same psyker are the same. 2 powers cast by different psykers are different.

Based on what? This is completely made up, with no basis on absolutely anything in the rules. This is getting really ludicrous.

If 2 powers cast by different psykers are the same, then a Tervigon that attempts to cast Enfeeble blocks all other Psykers from attempting to cast Enfeeble.
Because a psyker cannot cast the same power twice.

rigeld2 wrote:

If 2 powers cast by different psykers are the same, then a Tervigon that attempts to cast Enfeeble blocks all other Psykers from attempting to cast Enfeeble.
Because a psyker cannot cast the same power twice.

You are not making any sense. Yes, a psyker may not cast same power multiple times, but there is nothing forbidding two different psykers casting a same power.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If 2 powers cast by different psykers are the same, then a Tervigon that attempts to cast Enfeeble blocks all other Psykers from attempting to cast Enfeeble.
Because a psyker cannot cast the same power twice.

You are not making any sense. Yes, a psyker may not cast same power multiple times, but there is nothing forbidding two different psykers casting a same power.

You are attempting to treat 2 powers cast from different psykers as the same power on resolution, yes?

Why is it the same power then, but different when cast?

rigeld2 wrote:

You are attempting to treat 2 powers cast from different psykers as the same power on resolution, yes?

Why is it the same power then, but different when cast?

It is not different power, the psykers are different!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To make this absolutely clear to Rigeld2:
There is Psyker 1 and Psyker 2 and powers A and B.

All these are legal:

Psyker 1 casting A and B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting A


This is not:
Psyker 1 casting A and A

Capiche?

And who is casting what has absolutely nothing to do with stacking.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)

Well, since these phrases have in fact been cited throughout this and other threads, I see no reason not to quote them (seeing as your BRB is apparently missing pages by your own admission).

Pg. 68, last paragraph:

Maledictions are manifested at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase. They weaken the Pysker'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. Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonus and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

Pg. 419, Enfeeble:

Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

Not only does Enfeeble lack distinct verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative with multiple uses, Enfeeble specifically tells us that "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ... ". So as long as the target unit is under the effects of Enfeeble, that unit suffers the penalties noted under the power's rules. One Enfeeble or twelve Enfeebles, the effects of being Enfeebled will always be the same, a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness while treating all terrain as difficult terrain. And as long as a targeted unit is "Enfeebled", it will remain "Enfeebled" until the end of the effected player's turn, at which point the casting player can re-manifest Enfeeble on the same target unit or a different target unit during their own movement phase.

If you feel this is incorrect, please feel free to the cite and quote rules supporting your point of view (that's part of the forum's tenets, by the way). And if your BRB does not include the actual rules we are discussing, you might want to replace your BRB with one that does.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)

Well, since these phrases have in fact been cited throughout this and other threads, I see no reason not to quote them (seeing as your BRB is apparently missing pages by your own admission).

Pg. 68, last paragraph:

Maledictions are manifested at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase. They weaken the Pysker'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. Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonus and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

Pg. 419, Enfeeble:

Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

Not only does Enfeeble lack distinct verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative with multiple uses, Enfeeble specifically tells us that "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ... ". So as long as the target unit is under the effects of Enfeeble, that unit suffers the penalties noted under the power's rules. One Enfeeble or twelve Enfeebles, the effects of being Enfeebled will always be the same, a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness while treating all terrain as difficult terrain. And as long as a targeted unit is "Enfeebled", it will remain "Enfeebled" until the end of the effected player's turn, at which point the casting player can re-manifest Enfeeble on the same target unit or a different target unit during their own movement phase.

If you feel this is incorrect, please feel free to the cite and quote rules supporting your point of view (that's part of the forum's tenets, by the way). And if your BRB does not include the actual rules we are discussing, you might want to replace your BRB with one that does.

SJ

The Nurgle Chaos Marine power Gift of Contagion is a malediction that DOES have distinct verbiage allowing multiple castings of the same power to stack. What this suggests is that, normally, multiple castings of the same power (i.e., Enfeeble) do not stack with one another because they lack this distinct verbiage.

Sir Lynch - yes, it is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use maths, from page 2, and this follows usual rules for mathematics unless told otherwise (saves, which you still refuse to understand and pay attention to the rules telling you this, that DR patiently explained) therefore UNLESS and UNTIL you can find A RESTRICTION then 4-1-1 = 2 .

Find that restriction. NOt your made up requirement for "permission to stack", which is a lie created by you in order to support your argument, but an actual rule. Page, para.

Further refusal for you to accept the basic of mathematics will be considered your concession of the point, and your argument will be considered just a houserule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and apparently we cant use subtraction? Lol. +(-1) . Done. As is your argument.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)

Well, since these phrases have in fact been cited throughout this and other threads, I see no reason not to quote them (seeing as your BRB is apparently missing pages by your own admission).

Pg. 68, last paragraph:

Maledictions are manifested at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase. They weaken the Pysker'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. Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonus and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

Pg. 419, Enfeeble:

Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

Not only does Enfeeble lack distinct verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative with multiple uses, Enfeeble specifically tells us that "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ... ". So as long as the target unit is under the effects of Enfeeble, that unit suffers the penalties noted under the power's rules. One Enfeeble or twelve Enfeebles, the effects of being Enfeebled will always be the same, a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness while treating all terrain as difficult terrain. And as long as a targeted unit is "Enfeebled", it will remain "Enfeebled" until the end of the effected player's turn, at which point the casting player can re-manifest Enfeeble on the same target unit or a different target unit during their own movement phase.

If you feel this is incorrect, please feel free to the cite and quote rules supporting your point of view (that's part of the forum's tenets, by the way). And if your BRB does not include the actual rules we are discussing, you might want to replace your BRB with one that does.

SJ

So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

We've been down this road before Rigeld, with the same parroting of non-rules previously

They keep committing the fallacy of assuming the permission to do X is restriction on doing X'. This isnt true, but is essentially the basis of their argument. no matter how many times it can be shown to be untrue, it keeps getting repeated as if it has some merit.

Nos, so you just ignore the fact that the penalties are not direct result of successful cast, but the result of the power being in effect?

Also, I'm still waiting your explanation why Enfeeble would stack but Dominate doesn't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir Lynch - yes, it is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use maths, from page 2, and this follows usual rules for mathematics unless told otherwise (saves, which you still refuse to understand and pay attention to the rules telling you this, that DR patiently explained) therefore UNLESS and UNTIL you can find A RESTRICTION then 4-1-1 = 2 .

Find that restriction. NOt your made up requirement for "permission to stack", which is a lie created by you in order to support your argument, but an actual rule. Page, para.

Further refusal for you to accept the basic of mathematics will be considered your concession of the point, and your argument will be considered just a houserule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and apparently we cant use subtraction? Lol. +(-1) . Done. As is your argument.

The rules have been quoted many times already, and you're refusing to read them, or is your rule book missing pages as well?

permissive rule set says you need permission to stack.

Rules say only different powers stack

enfeeble = enfeeble, not different, no stacking.

The math is dictated by the rules, not the other way around. As I've shown. Til you can find permission for your second -1, you don't have it to put into your formula.

When you look at armor saves, you look at the rules first to work out the math
When you look at USR's, you look at the rules first to work out the math
and when you look at psychic powers, you look at the rules first to work out the math. but it's here you claim we should do it backwards.

now you need to find a rule under psychic powers that gives you permission to use the math the way you say it should work. Is there any rule from psychic powers, that lets you use the math the way you say it should be used? no.

So you can house rule it how you like, I'll play by RAW thanks.

And again for the closed minded who only read the rules the way they want to:

"a psyker cannot attempt to manifest the psychic power more than once"
ergo there never can be (according to you) any instance of the same power affecting a unit. Which would make these next 3 sentences a waste of space and ink. But here they are.


rule: "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"
note: "the bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative"
note: "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative"

Seems like an awful waste of ink if you were right, but it seems like they're trying to make a point here. A point like they made on pg 32, "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative. " It's not so much a point, as it's a theme for the whole book. or is that on your to be ignored list and different sources of the same special rule can stack as well?

Then pg 418 dismisses your notion that different psychers count for the same power being different
"psychers in the same army can have the same powers"

See different psychers same power.

Please explain how the rules for psychic powers in any way supports your conclusions? explain why if you were right they would waste 5 sentences to say the opposite of what you say?

Saying 4-1-1 again will be taken as an admission of your failure to provide RAW argument and I'll take it as your admitting you're wrong.

 Crimson wrote:


All these are legal:

Psyker 1 casting A and B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting A


This is not:
Psyker 1 casting A and A

So by this logic, is power A from psyker 1 and power A from psyker 2 "different powers"?

rigeld2 wrote:
So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

Citation, please (with quotes, since that's part of citing).

SJ

 beigeknight wrote:

So by this logic, is power A from psyker 1 and power A from psyker 2 "different powers"?

What, why? There is no prohibition on two different psykers casting a same power.

 Crimson wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

So by this logic, is power A from psyker 1 and power A from psyker 2 "different powers"?

What, why? There is no prohibition on two different psykers casting a same power.

Of course there isn't. But the question in the very beginning of this whole thing was "does Enfeeble stack?" If power A in the example is Enfeeble, then by using the above explanation they would in fact stack, resulting in -1 S and T twice (a total of -2)seeing as they are different powers from different psykers. I think that, as is common around here, some have lost sight of the original point of the discussion in favor of arguing for the sake of arguing.

No they're SAME power from different psykers! You can CAST it twice, it just doesn't stack.

 Crimson wrote:
No they're SAME power from different psykers! You can CAST it twice, it just doesn't stack.

If you're under the assumption that "different maledictions are cumulative" means "same maledictions are not cumulative" then I suppose that's true. I don't feel that is true though since it isn't written that way.

 beigeknight wrote:


If you're under the assumption that "different maledictions are cumulative" means "same maledictions are not cumulative" then I suppose that's true. I don't feel that is true though since it isn't written that way.

It implies it. However, the real reason why same powers do not stack is that powers say 'whilst this power is in effect...'
"Whilst Jinx is in effect models in the target unit have their Armour Saves worsened by 1." It doesn't matter how many times you cast Jinx on the unit, it still either is in effect or not.

And that way the sentence about different powers stacking is actually sensible reminder, instead of pointless non sequitur.

 Crimson wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:


If you're under the assumption that "different maledictions are cumulative" means "same maledictions are not cumulative" then I suppose that's true. I don't feel that is true though since it isn't written that way.

It implies it. However, the real reason why same powers do not stack is that powers say 'whilst this power is in effect...'
"Whilst Jinx is in effect models in the target unit have their Armour Saves worsened by 1." It doesn't matter how many times you cast Jinx on the unit, it still either is in effect or not.

And that way the sentence about different powers stacking is actually sensible reminder, instead of pointless non sequitur.

So you're saying that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the phrase "whilst this power is in effect" is not referring to the duration of the power itself? I would say that is the proper implication, otherwise the effect of the power has no permission to end.

 beigeknight wrote:

So you're saying that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the phrase "whilst this power is in effect" is not referring to the duration of the power itself? I would say that is the proper implication, otherwise the effect of the power has no permission to end.

I am not sure what you mean. Once the duration ends, the power is no longer in effect. Seems rather straightforward to me.

 Crimson wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

So you're saying that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the phrase "whilst this power is in effect" is not referring to the duration of the power itself? I would say that is the proper implication, otherwise the effect of the power has no permission to end.

I am not sure what you mean. Once the duration ends, the power is no longer in effect. Seems rather straightforward to me.

I guess I'm saying that the phrase "whilst this power is in effect" simply means "for the duration of the power" which in this case would be until the end of the following turn. I'm not sure why you think that creates a restriction on how many times that particular power can affect a target when manifested from different psykers.

 beigeknight wrote:

I guess I'm saying that the phrase "whilst this power is in effect" simply means "for the duration of the power" which in this case would be until the end of the following turn. I'm not sure why you think that creates a restriction on how many times that particular power can affect a target when manifested from different psykers.

Because it refers the power in general, instead of individual instance of it. Jinx is either in effect on the unit, or it isn't. This is how most special rules, wargear and vehicle upgrades work in this game. Possessing item/special rule/vehicle upgrade grants the benefits, number of items/special rules/vehicle upgrades does not affect this. It's the same thing, the power either is in effect or isn't. Look at Dominate, do you really think that multiple castings of Dominate would force unit to take multiple Ld tests each phase?

Sirlynch - and, again, your rules dont actually give the result you so desperately want. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. APparently, no matter how carefully or simpy this is explained you still dont comprehend that fact.

Have a look at the fallacy of excluded middle, youre doing it repeatedly

I have permission to use maths in this game, as shown on page 2, and it works as basic axiomatic (as in, using the same assumptions in maths we do in the real world - in case you are unaware what "axiomatic" means) maths except where noted.

So, do the rules for psychic powers state it works differently? No? Then guess what - thats the permission right there

Now, that is permission for 4-1-1 = 2. Done.

Your concession of failure to provide a rule showing "powers do niot stack unless explicitly stated" is accepted. Done arguing with you, as you have seemingly no grasp of how the rules work.

Crimson - it was asked and answered in previous threads. I'll stick on topic in this one. Start a separate one if you want.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

Citation, please (with quotes, since that's part of citing).

SJ

... Quote something that isn't in the BRB? That'd be pretty difficult...

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

Citation, please (with quotes, since that's part of citing).

SJ

... Quote something that isn't in the BRB? That'd be pretty difficult...

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Once on page 32: "Unless specifically stated ..."
Five times on page 68 "... unless otherwise stated ... "

But your BRB probably does not contain such verbiage.

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - and, again, your rules dont actually give the result you so desperately want. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. APparently, no matter how carefully or simpy this is explained you still dont comprehend that fact.

Have a look at the fallacy of excluded middle, youre doing it repeatedly

I have permission to use maths in this game, as shown on page 2, and it works as basic axiomatic (as in, using the same assumptions in maths we do in the real world - in case you are unaware what "axiomatic" means) maths except where noted.

So, do the rules for psychic powers state it works differently? No? Then guess what - thats the permission right there Yes, they do, give them a read.

Now, that is permission for 4-1-1 = 2. Done. and this is still wrong and admission to my being right and you're position to be fatally flawed.

Your concession of failure to provide a rule showing "powers do niot stack unless explicitly stated" is accepted. Done arguing with you, as you have seemingly no grasp of how the rules work.

Crimson - it was asked and answered in previous threads. I'll stick on topic in this one. Start a separate one if you want.

The rules do not need to say "same powers do not stack" the rules also don't say "don't knock all your opponents models to the floor" If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.

You obviously have no grasp of how a permissive rule set works.

Rules for psychic powers explicitly gives permission for different powers to stack. And as enfeeble is the same as enfeeble, and the rules for enfeeble do not specifically say they can stack, Ergo multiple enfeebles do not stack. You need to find the rule saying enfeeble can stack with enfeeble, that's how permissive rule sets work. so your left with 4-1=3.

you can only use math as dictated by the rules, not the other way around. Because it is also self evident that 5+2=7. Put it into any calculator and check.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

Citation, please (with quotes, since that's part of citing).

SJ

That's not how proof or citation works. You can not cite an item which is stated as being missing. Since you are the one disputing the fact that it is missing it falls on you to prove that it is in fact there. I.e. you can not call for a citation because you must prove that he is wrong.

However, I think you've misunderstood the thread. You cite the text which the thread is asking "does this mean different completely different or different from different sources?" You use the exact text that is being questioned in order to state your point of view. Or put in abstract terms Thread Q: Does A infer B or C? Your A: A infers B because A! But since A is being questioned the only logical conclusion is to also question your answer. You need something else to prove that A infers B.

Please note that I am, myself, neutral it's just that I found this call for a citation particularly irksome that I couldn't help replying to it. I would love to be able to use a Seer Council to bring an enemy psychers' leadership down to 1 but am not certain whether this is possible.

 Mahtamori wrote:

Please note that I am, myself, neutral it's just that I found this call for a citation particularly irksome that I couldn't help replying to it. I would love to be able to use a Seer Council to bring an enemy psychers' leadership down to 1 but am not certain whether this is possible. .

I hope we can see this question addressed in the next FAQ, while it was only Enfeeble and a handful other Mal's had stat reduction previously, since the Eldar codex release this seems more important.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Crimson - it was asked and answered in previous threads. I'll stick on topic in this one. Start a separate one if you want.

The Dominate one? No, you never answered it. You said something vague like 'it is worded differently' and never made any rational argument. Sorry.

And no, I will not start a separate thread for this, as it is essential to this discussion. I understand that you don't want to address it, as you'd have to admit that the only thing that stops Dominate stacking is 'whilst in effect' and that would stop other powers stacking too. If Enfeeble stacks, so does Dominate.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Crimson - it was asked and answered in previous threads. I'll stick on topic in this one. Start a separate one if you want.

The Dominate one? No, you never answered it. You said something vague like 'it is worded differently' and never made any rational argument. Sorry. If Enfeeble stacks, so does Dominate.

Incorrect, as the wording *is different* between the two. I also did make a "rational" argument, thanks for the condescension there. It really, really encourages people to answer your off topic questions.

Again: set up a new thread if you want an answer, and there we can explain, patiently, the difference. However this is a more fundamental question, where some apparently need basic maths explaining to them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - and, again, your rules dont actually give the result you so desperately want. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. APparently, no matter how carefully or simpy this is explained you still dont comprehend that fact.

Have a look at the fallacy of excluded middle, youre doing it repeatedly

I have permission to use maths in this game, as shown on page 2, and it works as basic axiomatic (as in, using the same assumptions in maths we do in the real world - in case you are unaware what "axiomatic" means) maths except where noted.

So, do the rules for psychic powers state it works differently? No? Then guess what - thats the permission right there Yes, they do, give them a read.

I have done. Repeatedly. Clearly you havent, as you are making a claim not backed up by rules.

Or can you please show how they have redefined maths? Page and para. An actual quote, showing this actual topic, this time - not your usual efforts which show a rule that doesnt answer it, which you then blindly cling to in the belief that simple repetioin will make people believe your argument is valid.

me wrote:Now, that is permission for 4-1-1 = 2. Done. and this is still wrong and admission to my being right and you're position to be fatally flawed.

Sigh. Whatever.

"your". Not "your are". You do realise you havent actually shown any rules supporting your position, yes? You have cited some rules, but they dont actually state what you appear to think they do.

me wrote:Your concession of failure to provide a rule showing "powers do niot stack unless explicitly stated" is accepted. Done arguing with you, as you have seemingly no grasp of how the rules work.

Apparently I have a glutton for punishment streak, as I will once last time try to get you to actually provide some pertinent rules. Probably a waste of time.

sirlynchmob wrote:The rules do not need to say "same powers do not stack" the rules also don't say "don't knock all your opponents models to the floor" If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.

I proved where the rules DO allow "stacking" - because the game uses basic axiomatic maths EXCEPT WHERE NOTED (as seriously, you need to understand that the rules DO say armour save mathematics work differently, no matter how many times you ignore it, hoping this flaw in your argument will go away - it wont) I have permission for 4-1 -1 to equal 2.

I thus have my permission. Find arule which restricts this. You have yet to do so. Find a rule - Page and Para - which states that psychic powers do NOT follow the rules of mathematics, as laid out on page 2. ANYTHING which supports this.

sirlynchmob wrote:You obviously have no grasp of how a permissive rule set works.

I would suggest my posting history over the last few years tells otherwise, but you can believe whatever fantasy makes it easier for you to ignore the rules being posted.

sirlynchmob wrote:Rules for psychic powers explicitly gives permission for different powers to stack.

Well yes, that is what we have said.

sirlynchmob wrote: And as enfeeble is the same as enfeeble, and the rules for enfeeble do not specifically say they can stack, Ergo multiple enfeebles do not stack.

Ooooh, SO close

Permission for X to happen does NOT mean that X' (not X) is automatically restricted. This is the >>>>>>>logical fallacy<<<<<<< you are pinning your argument on.

You entire argument is based on this logical fallacy.

All of it

The whole shebang

Now, I wont commit the fallacy fallacy, by then simpy assuming your wrong argument is wrong just because you have committed a logical fallacy. No, I showed it was wrong, by showing where I ALREADY have permission to do 4-1-1 and achieve 2.

So, we have permisison to do 4-1-1 and get 2. We do not have a restriction - given you are 100% unable to find one, despite being asked - showing that the rules for psychic powers deny this axiomatic maths is not still in operation

So it remains in operation

sirlynchmob wrote: You need to find the rule saying enfeeble can stack with enfeeble, that's how permissive rule sets work. so your left with 4-1=3.

Nope, as shown above: the rules for basic mathematics shows that 4-1-1 = 2, unless stated otherwise in the rules. You need to find the restriction to override this basic permission

Given you failed to do so, again, your argument is voided. Feel free to rty again with some actual rules anytime.

sirlynchmob wrote:
you can only use math as dictated by the rules, not the other way around. Because it is also self evident that 5+2=7. Put it into any calculator and check.

Gosh, its almost like I havent proven I am doing exactly that, AND DR and myself havent proven to you that he rules for armour saves explicitly alters the basic rules.

Gosh, its ALMOST Like if you were to acknowledge this your argument would just fall apart.

Well, whether you acknowledge it or not - your argument has fallen apart, totally.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Incorrect, as the wording *is different* between the two. I also did make a "rational" argument, thanks for the condescension there. It really, really encourages people to answer your off topic questions.

Oh great! Wording is not different any way that would affect the stacking, it is only different in the are where it needs to describe the different effect. And stacking powers is hardly of topic for a thread about stacking powers. But at this point I just have to take this as an admission that you have no real argument to make.

Take it however you like, reality will not alter based on what you think

It was explained in the prior thread and that wasnt sufficient for you, but was for others.

I will take you inability to counter the page 2 argument as admission that you have no rules basis for your argument, and you are simply making up a houserule. Done.

Your arrogance is pretty staggering. You never explained your position on Dominate beyond "it's different" (in some mysterious way). Best thing you've come up in these several threads is "it doesn't say I can't." That's your whole argument.

But it is indeed pointless to continue this discussion as you refuse to discuss.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

Citation, please (with quotes, since that's part of citing).

SJ

... Quote something that isn't in the BRB? That'd be pretty difficult...

Here, I'll quote it for you:

Once on page 32: "Unless specifically stated ..."
Five times on page 68 "... unless otherwise stated ... "

But your BRB probably does not contain such verbiage.

SJ

Yes, if you ignore all the other words in those rules it appears you're correct.
The rules in their entirety don't at all say what you asserted and don't apply to the current discussion.

It is clear that Enfeeble can't stack since you can't cast the same malediction twice as explicitly stated in the rules.

@nos

"you: I would suggest my posting history over the last few years tells otherwise, but you can believe whatever fantasy makes it easier for you to ignore the rules being posted.
You have cited some rules, but they dont actually state what you appear to think they do.
Gosh, its ALMOST Like if you were to acknowledge this your argument would just fall apart. "
Well, whether you acknowledge it or not - your argument has fallen apart, totally.

You're projecting your own failings again.

Math doesn't grant permission to do anything except the math as the rules tell you to do it. You obviously agree with this premise as well. This is where you are demonstrable wrong: you are claiming permission where none exists. As the rules only grant a single -1 that's all you get. Unless you can find within the rules of psychic powers a way to get the second. Does pg 2 say everything is cumulative unless otherwise noted? No, therefore you need to find under the rules of the appropriate section. how to use the math and what numbers you get.

"you: Permission for X to happen does NOT mean that X' (not X) is automatically restricted.

Yes that's how permission works, you have permission for X, and just X. you don't have permission for (not x) therefore you can't do (not X) No fallacies, just permission.

and just curious, are you and DR the same person? it's odd how you think because he agrees with you it must mean something. And we all agree rules dictate the math, but you (just you? the two of you?) want to claim math dictates the rules when it's benefits you.

I have 7 rules that support my position, and you one (which you only think grants something it doesn't). Fine we'll split the different RAI: enfeeble doesn't stack with enfeeble.

Uhm whats the problem?

We have about one relevant paragraph here:

1. The actual text of enfeeble (in short: reduce target Toughness by one)

The 1000x quoted rule about different powers stacking has no relevance on that matter whatsoever as 2x enfeeble are not two different powers and thus not adressed by that rule.
As there are no rules about same power NOT stacking, I guess we should return to apply the rule for enfeeble correctly, which leads to a stack.

The idea behind that ominous quote may be different, but:

1. This is not part of RAW
2. We have no empiric knowledge about any ideas behind a certain rule.

I just have a question, and don't have my BRB with me.

Is there an assumed initiative order in the Shooting phase, within a squad or unit?

Like, when you fire two Witchfire spells, do they happen at once, or one after another?

An example might be something like (and again, no BRB, so might not be super accurate) firing a Witchfire, then a beam, in order to target a model that was hidden behind some models.

The reason I ask is that if it happens at the same time, you'd use the base initiative for both of your Maledictions (assuming they do stack).

So at the given moment, your stat is X.

Malediction makes it X-1.

If the second malediction is fired at the same given moment, the stat is still just X.

See what I'm getting at? It's not a fully formed idea mind.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The rules do not need to say "same powers do not stack" the rules also don't say "don't knock all your opponents models to the floor" If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.

It is a good thing that the rules about modifiers give permission.

You obviously have no grasp of how a permissive rule set works.

To say that Nos has no grasp on the rules is incorrect in so many ways...

you can only use math as dictated by the rules, not the other way around. Because it is also self evident that 5+2=7. Put it into any calculator and check.

You are ignoring the part about Save values working in reverse to regular math. Don't.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The rules do not need to say "same powers do not stack" the rules also don't say "don't knock all your opponents models to the floor" If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.

It is a good thing that the rules about modifiers give permission.

You obviously have no grasp of how a permissive rule set works.

To say that Nos has no grasp on the rules is incorrect in so many ways...

you can only use math as dictated by the rules, not the other way around. Because it is also self evident that 5+2=7. Put it into any calculator and check.

You are ignoring the part about Save values working in reverse to regular math. Don't.

They give you permission on how to work the numbers you are given by the rules in question. The rules only give you a -1 s/t, it never gives the second for you to use for a modifier.

Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

you keep saying that, but show the rule that allows for this reverse math that overrides pg 2. it just says lower is better, not use funny math instead of the math present on pg 2 and how to handle modifiers. So if you want to say math dictates rules, than stick to that story. Don't say it's rule first than math for armor saves, than try to say math first than rules for psychic powers.

I have 7 rules that support my position, and you one (which you only think grants something it doesn't). Fine we'll split the different RAI: enfeeble doesn't stack with enfeeble.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

Congratulations nos, you are now both rigeld AND Deathreaper. I'd better be careful though. You might also be me...

He could be anyone of us...
And we'd never know...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The rules do not need to say "same powers do not stack" the rules also don't say "don't knock all your opponents models to the floor" If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.

It is a good thing that the rules about modifiers give permission.

You obviously have no grasp of how a permissive rule set works.

To say that Nos has no grasp on the rules is incorrect in so many ways...

you can only use math as dictated by the rules, not the other way around. Because it is also self evident that 5+2=7. Put it into any calculator and check.

You are ignoring the part about Save values working in reverse to regular math. Don't.

They give you permission on how to work the numbers you are given by the rules in question. The rules only give you a -1 s/t, it never gives the second for you to use for a modifier.

Page 2 actually includes all modifiers.

Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

Really? Did you seriously just type that...

you keep saying that, but show the rule that allows for this reverse math that overrides pg 2. it just says lower is better, not use funny math instead of the math present on pg 2 and how to handle modifiers. So if you want to say math dictates rules, than stick to that story. Don't say it's rule first than math for armor saves, than try to say math first than rules for psychic powers.

I have 7 rules that support my position, and you one (which you only think grants something it doesn't). Fine we'll split the different RAI: enfeeble doesn't stack with enfeeble.

I have quoted the rules that save values operate in reverse In this very thread.

In the following post (and others).
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/527208.page#5788042


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

Congratulations nos, you are now both rigeld AND Deathreaper. I'd better be careful though. You might also be me...

Nos may be Alpharius as well...

 DeathReaper wrote:

Page 2 actually includes all modifiers.

P2 tells you how to handle modifiers, the rules give you the values to use, and how to use them.
in and of itself it grants no permission for anything.

So until you can prove how you get a second enfeeble modifiers, you don't have one to use on pg 2.

SO lets focus here a second, since RAW is "unclear" would you and/or nos agree that the intent from all the rules in the appropriate section is that enfeeble will not stack with itself?

P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

If you ignore that, then there can be no further debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

See armour saves where discussing said rules are not, however.

Bonuses reducing some values while listing them at +1 are not basic rules of math.

editing to add:
Your premise is entirely false, no matter how valid the rest is.

The easy out is stating that the +1 is to the roll, but that is not what the rules state.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

If you ignore that, then there can be no further debate.

And if and only if you ignore everything written under psychic powers and psychers then your math argument works.

It's funny how when I show how 5+2=7, you're quick to jump to the rules to look it up under the proper section. Yet when it comes to psychic powers, you are afraid to even look at those pages.

I agree there is no debate as you are totally wrong and just can't accept it, nor even comment on what RAI could possible be.

Even in the poll you can't even reach a supreme court ruling at 53% so RAW is at best inconclusive. But if all you have is pg 2, and nothing from the actual section of psychic stuff, then I can only conclude you are wrong.

General permission for modifiers to be applied in a cumulative fashion is given. That's fine and dandy for modifiers. The effects and abilities still need to stack for those modifiers to be applied.

In the psychic powers section only of different powers are permitted to stack. This disrupts any notion that there is some kind of unstated default stacking ability of these powers.

The idea that 'basic math' supports stacking is laughable. Stacking is using basic addition/subtraction. Saying 'basic math says they stack therefore they stack' is exactly the same as saying 'stacking says they stack therefore they stack' ...

So what are different powers? Any power by a different name is a different power. This is defined in the common reading of "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn..." Page 67 BRB
...unless anyone wants to claim every psyker can use enfeeble several times a turn til he runs out of warp charges because each use is a 'different' power. It seems quite clear powers of the same name are not different.

Why is this still being argued?

Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

 jifel wrote:
Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

You've got the question backwards. Where does it say they are allowed to stack? Permissive rule set and all...

 Abandon wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

You've got the question backwards. Where does it say they are allowed to stack? Permissive rule set and all...

Maybe this is obvious and I'm missing this. Where is it said that 40k is a Permissive ruleset? Not trying to be aggressive, I'm just genuinely curious because it gets brought up a lot.

It doesn't. Games are written with permission - you must have permission to do something or you cannot do it. Laws, otoh, are restrictive - you can do anything you want as long as you don't break the rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
It doesn't. Games are written with permission - you must have permission to do something or you cannot do it. Laws, otoh, are restrictive - you can do anything you want as long as you don't break the rules.

Hm. Well I think it does stack, here's my reasoning:

1. Psykers are allowed to cast enfeeble.
2. Two different psykers are both allowed to cast enfeeble.
3. These psykers may target any unit in range.
4. It is never said that this may not be the same unit.
5. Psykers are given permission to resolve the power they cast.
6. It is never said that they can't both resolve on the same unit.

It is said that permissive rulesets mean that we must have permission or it can't be done. Psykers have permission to cast and resolve powers. Whether or not the target has already had the same power resolved on it, doesn't change the fact that the psyker has permission to cast/resolve the power.

However, it is clear based on the poll that the community is split with no significant majority. The BRB says that when we have a rules conflict, to try to resolve it among our selves. One reccomendation is to look at similar rules. The best example I can think of is the Psychic power Hammerhand from Codex GK. When this power, which like Enfeeble is a 1 modifier to a base stat (strength, even if in the opposite direction [+ instead of -]) is cast it is given specific permission to stack if cast more than once.

The power "enfeeble" is given permission to be cast. I have permission for all my psykers to cast and resolve it if they have it. No where is that permission revoked even if the unit has already been hit by enfeeble. Therefore, I have permission to cast it. If anyone can dispute the above, I encourage you to do so in a rational polite manner. What step of this am I not allowed to do via a permissive ruleset? I see permission to do so, and that permission is unchanged by whether the target is already suffering enfeeble.

A second question: If I cast objuration Mechanicus twice on a rhino, do you think it would only suffer a single haywire hit?

Personally, I have no side in this. Right now I am impartial. I will most likely remain so until GW releases an FAQ covering this, or it pops up enough in games at my local store to warrant determination. As it stands dakka is the only place that I have seen this come up.

 jifel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

You've got the question backwards. Where does it say they are allowed to stack? Permissive rule set and all...

Maybe this is obvious and I'm missing this. Where is it said that 40k is a Permissive ruleset? Not trying to be aggressive, I'm just genuinely curious because it gets brought up a lot.

It is necessary to make the rules actually work and is the same in most every game. For example there is no rule that expressly forbids you from picking up you models and placing them where ever you feel like when ever you feel like doing so. If the rules were not treated as a permissive rule set you could do this and would quickly find the game unplayable.

Instead treating this as a permissive rule set means the models can only move as they specify and the game can proceed in an orderly and functional fashion.

 Abandon wrote:

It is necessary to make the rules actually work and is the same in most every game. For example there is no rule that expressly forbids you from picking up you models and placing them where ever you feel like when ever you feel like doing so. If the rules were not treated as a permissive rule set you could do this and would quickly find the game unplayable.

Instead treating this as a permissive rule set means the models can only move as they specify and the game can proceed in an orderly and functional fashion.

Fair enough. Even then, see my post above, I believe I do have that permission to cast it twice.

Just an FYI, but Hammerhand is not cumulative. Nowhere in the GK codex is permission given to Hammerhand to stack; permission was only given in the last set of 5th Ed FAQs that where replaced by the current set of 6th Ed FAQs which just so happen to not include permission to stack. For reference, look at Might of Titan, which does contain verbiage allowing it to stack specifically with Hammerhand.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just an FYI, but Hammerhand is not cumulative. Nowhere in the GK codex is permission given to Hammerhand to stack; permission was only given in the last set of 5th Ed FAQs that where replaced by the current set of 6th Ed FAQs which just so happen to not include permission to stack. For reference, look at Might of Titan, which does contain verbiage allowing it to stack specifically with Hammerhand.

SJ

Wait, the 6th edition FAQs changed it to no longer being able to stack? That is news to me.