No matter how many Terrify can be in place on a single unit, if that unit takes a single Morale check at the end of the Psychic phase they have fulfilled all instances of terrify.
Hollismason wrote: Basically, I can't find anywhere where Maledictions don't stack.
Specifically about Terrify it seems to cause two tests, one at the end of your phase, one at the end of their phase.
Unless the BRB states that they don't stack, then they do
In fact the exact opposite is true. Unless the BRB says that they fo stack then they don't.
Annoyingly they put in the extra wording on Blessings to make it super clear but didn't bother for Maledictions despite using the same "different powers stack" wording which will always lead to some people trying to gain an advantage through attacking weak wording.
Hollismason wrote: Hrmmm. I'll look at my book again. I think Blessings specifically says it doesn't stack , but Maledictions don't say that.
Like the wording and such is that is specifically says blessings.
Yes here it is
"The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative."
Am I missing something on Maledictions? Cause I don't see that same sentence unless it's a snake then it's going to bite me.
It's an interpretation of RAW. There is nothing to contradict, but there is nothing to support either. So best to play it as is or ask someone who you can trust to be objective and knowledgeable, a theory crafting forum isn't the best idea imho
Hollismason wrote: 40k is a permissive ruleset though so , meh I dunno , I dunno if it does or not. 50/50 on this.
Multiple ways to go about it.
Roll a die to play it one way, say even you do one way odds you do another. Discuss with an opponent. Or follow what comes to mind as you read the ruling naturally, your natural instincts and understanding of the game mechanics will kick in
Yeah, we're not really interpreting rules as intended right now, asI think it's intention is that they do not in fact stack, but RAW is most common with TOs.
Also People on Vassal an IRL are pretty RAW, my friends are RAI. People I play pick up with are usually RAW just so their no confusion.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah, we're not really interpreting rules as intended right now, asI think it's intention is that they do not in fact stack, but RAW is most common with TOs.
Also People on Vassal an IRL are pretty RAW, my friends are RAI. People I play pick up with are usually RAW just so their no confusion.
To be fair, RAW is not always clear as is evident in other threads which leads to Rules as Interpreted and the golden rule of 40k which shall not be mentioned. Simply discuss with your opponent until you hear otherwise. You won't find an exact ruling to state either way on this one sorry.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah I understand RAI but argueing RAI isn't what we're trying to figure out.
40k being a permissive ruleset RAW they do stack.
So you have a page number that states this? I see permission for different Maledictions to stack. Please can you quote your permission for the same Malediction to stack with itself.
There's two arguments for this, one Permission by Ommission or Permission through Allowance Both are pretty valid which is why YMDC runs in circles as some people fall on the philosophy of one of those two.
I don't see a rule that states similar to Blessing that states they do not in fact stack unless I am missing something.
There's two arguments for this, one Permission by Ommission or Permission through Allowance Both are pretty valid which is why YMDC runs in circles as some people fall on the philosophy of one of those two.
Yes but we are talking about maledictions. I can see why they wouldn't want blessing to stack cause then you could make unstoppable killing machines, but I don't recall anything restricting maledictions
I think it is clear in 6E and 7E that they are not supposed to stack.
Unfortunately, they did not make the RAW clear. Even the 7E blessings are not completely clear (though the changed wording does lean more towards 'no'.)
Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack. For Example, does enfeeble stack?
Hollismason wrote: Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.
Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes
Hollismason wrote: Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.
Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes
Who said GW wanted little dudes to kill the big dudes?
Hollismason wrote: Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.
Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes
Who said GW wanted little dudes to kill the big dudes?
Logic. If they didn't having debuffs in the game would be pointless
Hollismason wrote: Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.
Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes
Who said GW wanted little dudes to kill the big dudes?
Logic. If they didn't having debuffs in the game would be pointless
Logic: They want you to buy big dudes to be able to kill other big dudes
Okay finally got home and got the exact wording which is completely different than blessings
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Now for Comparison what Blessing say which is completely different wording
The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative.
I find it interesting that Blessings state they are non-cumulative with themselves but Maledictions do not, it's almost like they didn't put that rule in the Maledictions part deliberately because they're supposed to be stackable.
PrinceRaven wrote: It takes -2 to leadership instead of -1, I don't think it would have to take multiple morale tests at the end of the phase.
Why would it not though?
Each Malediction is cumulative, I mean it's right there and apparently Terrify affects a unit twice once in yours once in theirs.
That would be 4 Tests at -2. That's a little much. I mean any unit that isn't fearless, they straight up fail. Odds that I quickly calculated with LD 10 goes to 8, even at 8 it's a failure of like > 70%.
I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing, are you taking "different" maledictions to mean originating from different casters, as opposed to different named effects?
That's the problem. It's really really unclear. Does it mean Different Maledictions spells? Does it mean Different Spells that cause the same reduction?
Why is it worded that way, why is it not worded like Blessing.
I think the intention really is to have Maledictions stack and the RAW I think they do.
Trying to figure out how they don't.
I posted previously the clear distinctions from the wording of a Malediction and a Blessing. The problem is Maledictions say are ALWAYS cumulative.Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).that's a weird way to write that sentence. Do they mean different casters? That doesn't make sense. How can a Caster cast the same malediction twice on one unit?
azreal13 wrote: I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing, are you taking "different" maledictions to mean originating from different casters, as opposed to different named effects?
Unlike Blessings, Maledictions don't have a restriction to only have 1 of the same power in effect per unit.
PrinceRaven wrote: It takes -2 to leadership instead of -1, I don't think it would have to take multiple morale tests at the end of the phase.
Why would it not though?
I was thinking more because most "end of the ____ phase" effects only happen once, morale tests due to casualties, grounding tests, etc. So I don't see why this would be different.
It is entirely possible that I'm wrong, though.
It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?
Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.
azreal13 wrote: It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?
Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.
This way makes a lot more sense. If it was multiples of the same enfeeb, how would you determine when each one ended in a proper context that wouldn't involve hassles
azreal13 wrote: It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?
Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.
No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.
Well actually all of the maledictions always end during your psychic phase so it wouldn't really be a issue. There's not one malediction that I am aware of that wouldn't.
azreal13 wrote: It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?
Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.
No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.
Really?
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
azreal13 wrote: It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?
Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.
No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.
Really?
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
This rule does not restrict multiples uses of the same power affecting the same unit.
Effects stack, so two powers that both list -1 LD as part of their effect would cumulatively remove -2 LD. However, the same power cast by two Psykers on the same unit would only result in the effect being applied once.
Equally, other game effects with the same effect, for instance Fiends Of Slaanesh in range of a unit with Brotherhood Of Psykers, would also stack.
To me, that seems RAI and the most logical way forward, but I freely admit that RAW doesn't favour this over other interpretations.
Hollismason wrote: Well actually all of the maledictions always end during your psychic phase so it wouldn't really be a issue. There's not one malediction that I am aware of that wouldn't.
azreal13 wrote: It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?
Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.
No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.
Really?
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
This rule does not restrict multiples uses of the same power affecting the same unit.
It does if you take different to mean "powers that aren't of the same name" and not "powers cast from different points of origin"
No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.
PrinceRaven wrote: No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.
If that were the case, the word different in the quoted sentence we're discussing becomes redundant.
Yeah that's the big problem I have on one hand I could go the other way and say " Well it means different Psychic Powers" or I could say " Well obviously it just means different iterations of the same spell".
Just very poorly written and I think honestly RAI , and not RAW that it was intended that in fact Maledictions do stack.
I mean taking in the context of how blessing was worded then how this was worded. Its hard to to argue that.
PrinceRaven wrote: No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.
If that were the case, the word different in the quoted sentence we're discussing becomes redundant.
In this context, yes, the entire sentence is completely redundant.
If, for instance, we were discussing whether Iron Arm and Enfeeble or Terrify and The Horror stack it would be a very important rule to those discussions.
I'm guessing the intent was that you can't use the same spell of the same name on a unit and double the effects, but you can use 2 spells of different names on a unit that has a similar or the same effect.
in other words, I can't cast terrify on a unit twice and get 2 effects that stack (ie -2 LD), but I can cast terrify and horror (in this example assuming they has a similar effect) (and assuming they had -1 LD each, get -2 LD) on the same unit and have the effects stack.
Which seems to be in the intent of the writing of the rules.
PrinceRaven wrote: No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.
If that were the case, the word different in the quoted sentence we're discussing becomes redundant.
In this context, yes, the entire sentence is completely redundant.
If, for instance, we were discussing whether Iron Arm and Enfeeble or Terrify and The Horror stack it would be a very important rule to those discussions.
For that to work then
Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Is functionally identical to
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
The word different is there for a reason, and I believe it is there to prevent multiple castings of the same maledictions multiple times for cumulative effects, while still allowing for maledictions that have similar effects to be cast multiple times for greater penalties.
Well, since we're discussing intent; If that's the case, Sorris, why do the Blessings rules have specific wording preventing the use of multiple manifestations of the same Blessing, when said rule was left out of the Malediction and Witchfire sections?
That's what I want it to be, but really you have to admit it's very unclear. Let's do word replacement with instead of Malediction replace use Terrify.
Now this is just word substitution and let's see what we get.
Malediction
Terrify weaken the Psyker’s enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting special rules that penalise their abilities. Terrifies target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the start of the Psyker’s next Psychic phase Terrifies can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Terrifies are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
That's why i think they stack.
I mean this is a simple word subsitution and I think when you do that it is evident what is going on. I hope this helps.
It's weird to write it out like that but I think it illustrates the problems we are having.
I mean replace Maledictions with X and you get the same issue.
Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Is functionally identical to
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
The word different is there for a reason, and I believe it is there to prevent multiple castings of the same maledictions multiple times for cumulative effects, while still allowing for maledictions that have similar effects to be cast multiple times for greater penalties.
Those are 2 quite different rules.
One of them states allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledictions as long as they are different powers.
The other allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledctions no matter what.
If the word different was not in the rule, a unit with Doom cast on it twice would be required to reroll their saves twice, which is expressly forbidden by the rulebook, thus breaking the game.
For the rule to prevent all cases of multiple uses of the Malediction from stacking, it would have to say:
"Note that only bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership)."
or
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership). Bonuses and penalties from multiple manifestations of the same malediction are always non-cumulative.
or
"The benefit of any one particular malediction can only be gained once per unit per turn, but bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, maledictions cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership)." - Note that this is the same wording blessings have.
Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Is functionally identical to
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
The word different is there for a reason, and I believe it is there to prevent multiple castings of the same maledictions multiple times for cumulative effects, while still allowing for maledictions that have similar effects to be cast multiple times for greater penalties.
Those are 2 quite different rules.
One of them states allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledictions as long as they are different powers.
The other allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledctions no matter what.
If the word different did not exist, a unit with Doom cast on it twice would be required to reroll their saves twice, which is expressly forbidden by the rulebook, thus breaking the game.
Please see my previous post, it's very clear if you word substitute that it works that way. In that multiple Maledictions do in fact stack.
I mean I don't think they should or maybe I do. I'm not sure if it wasn't for the super hardline that Blessings states I'd say no they don't but.....
sirlynchmob wrote: No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.
About from the basic psychic rules allowing you to resolve a malediction on an enemy unit?
I have a unit my opponent has cast Terrify on, is it still an enemy unit? Yes -> He has permission to Terrify it.
And how many morale checks does that unit make at the end of the turn? there is your answer.
And the answer is once.
How many fear tests does that unit make?
And again, the answer is once.
so whilst this power is in effect, you only use the effect once. ergo it is non cumulative. It is one effect, doing 3 different things, if 2 out of 3 are non cumulative, why would you think 1 of 3 is? There is absolute no rule support to say that it is cumulative.
sirlynchmob wrote:And how many morale checks does that unit make at the end of the turn? there is your answer.
And the answer is once.
I am unsure, I can see arguments for both sides and while I'm leaning towards only 1 because other end of phase effects tend to be once only I recognise that is RAI, not RAW.
How many fear tests does that unit make?
And again, the answer is once.
Correct, because "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."
- 1 to leadership is not a special rule though, it is a modifier.
so whilst this power is in effect, you only use the effect once. ergo it is non cumulative. It is one effect, doing 3 different things, if 2 out of 3 are non cumulative, why would you think 1 of 3 is? There is absolute no rule support to say that it is cumulative.
Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.
sirlynchmob wrote: No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.
About from the basic psychic rules allowing you to resolve a malediction on an enemy unit?
I have a unit my opponent has cast Terrify on, is it still an enemy unit? Yes -> He has permission to Terrify it.
Permission to cast it several times, is not permission to have it's effects apply multiple times.
How about permission to resolve it according to its entry? Does that rule stop working when the unit has already been Terrified?
If so, could you prove your position using relevant rules quotes?
If you're sticking with that psychic powers are not special rules still, then you still do not have permission to have a modifier.
wargear and special rules can modify characteristics.
You also don't have a combination of rules or wargear, you have one rule that you are incorrectly trying to apply more than once. One rule is not a combination of rules.
so RAW terrify can't modify leadership, or it can modify it once. It's your choice. There is no rule anywhere that lets you apply 1/3 of a rule cumulatively. Nor even a hint at any rule that suggest maledictions are cumulative.
@sirlyn, I see your point, but there is also no rule saying they are not cumulative, which brings us to the current issue.
Best advice, treat it like blessings and have them not stack until you hear otherwise or treat them like they do until you hear otherwise. Or do the old fashioned way, roll a die
PrinceRaven wrote: "Wargear and special rules can modify characteristics" doesn't mean the effects of psychic powers can not.
I do have a combination of rules, I have one Terrify and another Terrify which both have a -1 leadership modifier I am combining onto a single unit.
well you should mark your posts as HIWPI then, as you are no where near RAW.
Where is psychics powers permission to modify characteristics? as I've shown they can't RAW. Because wargear & special rules does mean psychic powers can't as they have no permission to do so.
one rule is not a combination of rules. so again that's not RAW
The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.
PrinceRaven wrote: The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.
Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?
It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.
You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.
PrinceRaven wrote: The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.
Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?
It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.
You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.
Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.
So now I don't know what the hell.
Ugh I feel like writing a letter to GW.
Generally, I would not recommend a written letter when the issue at hand is the recipients inability to read and write.
Maybe try drawing them a picture. With crayons. Or finger paint.
PrinceRaven wrote: The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.
Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?
It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.
You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.
Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.
That is the general tone of many of these threads tbh. Unless you can cite an explicit rule in the text i.e., that explicit rules is what gives you permission, then you can't do anything.
Ok, hypothetical situation, I have 3 warp charges remaining and a Farseer with Terrify that has line of sight to an enemy Tactical Squad unit 20" away which has already had Terrify used on it. Let's follow the steps:
1. "Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest." - I select my Psyker and and nominate Terrify as the power I wish to manifest.
2. Declare Target. If the power requires a target, choose it at this point." - Now, Maledictions require line of sight, Terrify has a range of 24, and I can only use Maledictions on enemy units. It just so happens that my opponent's Tactical Squad fulfils all those requirements, so I declare said unit as my target.
3. "Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately." I expend all 3 warp charges and get 1, 4, 6, so I don't suffer Perils of the Warp, and I pass the test.
4. "Deny the Witch. If the Psychic test was passed, one of the enemy targets gets a chance to expend Warp Charge points to nullify the power by taking a Deny the Witch test. If the psychic power does not target an enemy unit, your opponent can still attempt to Deny the Witch, but will not be able to use any bonuses. In either case, if the Deny the Witch test is passed, the psychic power does not manifest and nothing further happens." - My opponent now attempts to deny with 5 warp charges, his unit has no Psyker or other DtW boost, so with a result of 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 he only gets success and fails the test.
5. "Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved." - Now here's where it gets tricky, how do we resolve the power? Ah, I see: " Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." So we go to the entry for Terrify:
"Terrify is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target has a -1 penalty to their Leadership..."
and apply the effects to the unit, I'll focus on the -1 penalty.
6. So now that the power is resolved we have a -1 penalty being applied to the units leadership, but the unit already has a -1 penalty from the previous Terrify, giving us multiple modifiers to the leadership characteristic of each model. Looks like we need the Multiple Modifier rules:
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
So, following the Multiple Modifiers rules, we take the Tactical Marine's leadership of 8, and apply any multipliers, we have no multipliers so let's continue. Next we apply any additions or subtractions, we have subtractions her, so lets apply those: 8-1-1=6, now we apply set modifiers, but we don't have enough, so we're done, each Tactical Marine has a modified leadership score of 6.
PrinceRaven wrote: The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.
Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?
It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.
You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.
Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.
That is the general tone of many of these threads tbh. Unless you can cite an explicit rule in the text i.e., that explicit rules is what gives you permission, then you can't do anything.
Yeah, but the problem here is that you already have permission from the rules to cast multiple maledictions on the same unit. You also have permission to modify the unit's leadership and permission to stack the effects of Maledictions. Since there is no stipulation that the effects of multiple copies of the same power cannot stack that means you can. He asserts that since the rules state that you can't means you can't do that even though there is no rule preventing you from doing so.
See, in a permissive rules set (A phrase I despise since it's not a completely accurate description of 40k) like Warhammer 40,000 there is a difference between making up rules out of nowhere and committing actions that are in the parameters set by the rules but not covered in their exact wording.
PrinceRaven wrote: The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.
Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?
It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.
You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.
Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.
That is the general tone of many of these threads tbh. Unless you can cite an explicit rule in the text i.e., that explicit rules is what gives you permission, then you can't do anything.
Yeah, but the problem here is that you already have permission from the rules to cast multiple maledictions on the same unit. You also have permission to modify the unit's leadership and permission to stack the effects of Maledictions. Since there is no stipulation that the effects of multiple copies of the same power cannot stack that means you can. He asserts that since the rules state that you can't means you can't do that even though there is no rule preventing you from doing so.
See, in a permissive rules set (A phrase I despise since it's not a completely accurate description of 40k) like Warhammer 40,000 there is a difference between making up rules out of nowhere and committing actions that are in the parameters set by the rules but not covered in their exact wording.
I totally agree with your point, the maledictions how I read the rulings do indeed stack. I see nothing contradicting this in the BRB, so going with RAW they stacked until proven otherwise.
As for the permissive ruleset, what it means is GW doesn't care enough to intervene and give an exact answer so do whatever makes you happy in that game, which also, following this line of logic, makes this entire TMDC pointless as GW won't change anything as the permissive ruleset is designed to let players play how they want.
and 5 is where you go wrong, why focus on the -1 ld? why not focus on the fear test, why not the morale test. How many fear tests does a unit with 2 terrifies take? if you can't account for the whole power, just admit you're stating HIWPI.
If the power was truly cumulative as you claim, yet can't prove, why not make 2 fear tests and 2 morale tests. You're claim is the whole of terrify is cumulative, so why claim just the LD is cumulative without the other parts of the power. This just show how wrong your conclusion is.
As terrify is not a piece of wargear nor a special rule, you never get the first -1 modifier RAW. You're failure to recognize this puts your conclusion further into question, because you are not basing your opinion on RAW. In the end, RAW the marines are left at LD 8.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the thing with the fear tests is that the unit that has to take them only has to take it once? As in, nothing stops you from applying multiple fear test requirements on the same unit but it only ever has to take it once? That means that there is nothing stopping you from modifying it's leadership further than a -1 because the rule doesn't state that you discard other effects that came with whatever triggered the fear test. It's sort of like grounding tests with monstrous creatures. Just because it only has to take it once doesn't mean you can only ever count one wound against it.
sirlynchmob wrote: and 5 is where you go wrong, why focus on the -1 ld? why not focus on the fear test, why not the morale test. How many fear tests does a unit with 2 terrifies take? if you can't account for the whole power, just admit you're stating HIWPI.
Because you can't treat enemies as having Fear multiple times, you either do or you don't, there is no Double Fear special rule you can treat them as having.
The other one I'm not 100% on my stance, so it would hypocritical for me to argue for it.
If the power was truly cumulative as you claim, yet can't prove, why not make 2 fear tests and 2 morale tests. You're claim is the whole of terrify is cumulative, so why claim just the LD is cumulative without the other parts of the power. This just show how wrong your conclusion is.
I claim that the modifier is cumulative because that is the only effect of the power I am 100% convinced will be cumulative when you have mulitple Terrifies on the same unit.
I don't see a rule that says every effect of a power has to be cumulative otherwise none of them are.
As terrify is not a piece of wargear nor a special rule, you never get the first -1 modifier RAW. You're failure to recognize this puts your conclusion further into question, because you are not basing your opinion on RAW. In the end, RAW the marines are left at LD 8.
There is no rule that states the effects of psychic powers may not modify characteristics or that only wargear and special rules may modify characteristics, but there are many psychic powers that say they do, in fact, modify characteristics. Your failure to recognise this puts your conclusions into question, as you are basing your opinion on logical fallacies, especially the one known as denying the antecedent. In the end, according to RAW, the marines are left at LD 6.
Yes psychic powers do modify characteristics, because they bestow special rules like terrify on a unit. Special rules can modify characteristics. We are told multiple times that psychic powers can bestow special rules.
As a special rule, they are by default non cumulative as we are reminded of under resolving the power. And we see there that multiple different powers are cumulative. Like all special rules, a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once.
This power, is one power (A) and while A is in effect you get XYZ. If A is cumulative you should end up with XXYYZZ, if not you are admitting it is non cumulative. Or you can quote a rule as to what parts are cumulative and how.
When you argue that it is not a special rule, you forbid it from modifying characteristics. You need a rule to say psychic powers can modify characteristics a absence of a rule is not permission. We are told what can modify characteristics and powers are not listed amongst them.
so either terrify bestows a special rule as a singular power, or it does not have permission to modify characteristics. So it's -1 or 0, Those are the choices.
So which special rule is the -1 penalty from Terrify, and in which book can I find it listed as a special rule?
You do get XXYYZZ, except X is not cumulative with X, and Y may or may not be cumulative with Y, I'm still waiting for a discussion on that, so you end up with XYZZ or XYYZZ depending on whether the unit takes multiple tests at the end of the phase or not.
Clearly you didn't notice how I demonstrated permission to resolve the power according to its entry, which includes a characteristic modifier, so in the absence of a rule denying that permission I can, in fact, apply said modifier.
Interesting false dichotomy you've got there, I'll take a third option: Terrify bestows 3 effects to the unit, some of which are cumulative and some of which aren't.
Basically this is the same discussion as in 6th but with even more willful ignorance on the pro stacking side as they are bitter that they got proved wrong with the wording change on blessings so are going after any weakness in wording they can find to try to cheat an advantage or argue for the sake of it.
I'll sum up both sides:
What was agreed, due to rules on casting the same power multiple times, that different means not the same. As the same means the same named power, different therefore means differently named powers.
Pro Stacking means you believe the following:
1) All successfully manifested powers have permission to resolve this permission is inherently cumulative not concurrent.
2) therefore permission to resolve = permission to stack effects. Thus multiple modifiers come into play.
3) The rule about how Maledictions stack is a reminder and does nothing.
4) GW specifically called out different just to confuse the reader. This is the only incidence of GW doing a partial intentionally misleading "reminder" but we are allowed to be willfully ignorant of that.
5) The scattered instances of powers specifically calling out that they stack with themselves are also all reminders. GW likes wasting paper to intentionally mislead the reader.
Against Stacking side believes:
1) Successfully manifesting a power puts that power into effect. Unless instructed otherwise it resolves concurrently with itself. Wording such as "whilst this power is in effect..." means that casting the power once twice or a thousand times the power is still in effect.
2) Thus we require specific permission to stack.
3) The rule on how Maledictions stack tells us that different powers stack hence we have specific permission for different powers to stack but not repeated instances of the same power.
4) Further evidence to support this is found for instance inthe CSM Codex where certain specific powers call out that they stack with themselves (symphony of pain). We believe these are again not reminders but actual rule exceptions.
It's funny, wilful ignorance is exactly how I'd describe the anti-stacking side, especially now that we have a rule that specifically calls out Blessings as being non-cumulative with themselves, while Maledictions go unchanged.
I've already written that with simple word substitution that its obvious what was intended. It's pretty clear to me that they stack.
Why does word substitution specifically work in this instance? Because Blessing and Malediction are category names of Psychic Power Types, but since they are categories you can simply substitute the Word Blessing for any spell that is a blessing and it's going to read the same way. It's like saying Cars have wheels. Cars is a category of things, I can replace by simply saying, Toyotas , Hondas .... have wheels.
However I'll do this one more time. Let's say there is no such thing as Blessings and instead each individual spell that was previously a blessing had instead its own specific rule written out like this.
Blessings
The benefit of any one particular Forewarning can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
As you can see you can substitute or write out every single, Blessing Psychic Power in that instance and the phrase stays the same, you could even word swap it other places and it still lays out clearly that you cannot have more than one Forewarning affect a unit.
Now let's look at Maledictions.
Malediction
Terrify can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Terrifies are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Now with other words
Enfeeble can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Enfeebles are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
We could do that all day and it becomes perfectly clear that it works that way because of the fact that those are Categories, they didn't make a rule for each individual spell in the game because that would be exhaustive. They don't need to , they know that when they say Blessings, you know that it refers to all spells labeled Blessings.
This is literally arguing with the written English language and how it functions.
Hollismason wrote: I've already written that with simple word substitution that its obvious what was intended. It's pretty clear to me that they stack.
Why does word substitution specifically work in this instance? Because Blessing and Malediction are category names of Psychic Power Types, but since they are categories you can simply substitute the Word Blessing for any spell that is a blessing and it's going to read the same way. It's like saying Cars have wheels. Cars is a category of things, I can replace by simply saying, Toyotas , Hondas .... have wheels.
However I'll do this one more time.
Blessings
The benefit of any one particular Forewarning can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different Forewarning are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
As you can see you can subsitute or write out every single, Blessing Psychic Power in that instance and the phrase stays the same, you could even write. It's going to be read the same thing, because Blessing is a general Category that includes everything that we label as blessing.
Now let's look at Maledictions.
Malediction
Terrify can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Terrifies are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Now with other words
Enfeeble can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Enfeebles are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
We could do that all day and it becomes perfectly clear that it works that way because of the fact that those are Categories, they didn't make a rule for each individual spell in the game because that would be exhaustive. They don't need to , they know that when they say Blessings, you know that it refers to all spells labeled Blessings.
This is literally arguing with the written English language and how it functions.
The key thing to remember that people simply choose not to acknowledge for the most part. All rules in the book work as written UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.[i][u]
This applies to resolving anything. You resolve and do everything exactly as described in the text. Since there is nothing specifically stating that maledictions do not stack, they do stack. Until the dissenting side can provide specific text proving otherwise, their argument is done.
This is literally arguing with the written English language and how it functions.
I love this part because it is completely true. We are arguing over how words are written and how we each understand those rules to be written, all of which are interpretations, none of it fact except for obvious conclusions, one being that if a rule doesn't state you cannot do something then you can and if it states you can do something, nothing prevents you from not doing it.
Hollismason wrote: It actually states pretty clearly that Maledictions do stack ,but yeah it's a weird thing that people would argue.
It's very very easy to tell that with just simple word substitution.
Yeah I can see the issue. I figured that they would stack when I first read them as Blessings specifically state that they do not but Maledictions say nothing of the sort.
It's actually really important to not ignore that word "particular" in that sentence.
If all blessings were instead called Forewarning but each had different rules, that sentence would still make sense. With word substitution it still makes sense, because there's only one spell named Forewarning and it's effects can only be applied once even if you cast it twice. It's really clear to me they intended and as it is written that Maledictions do in fact stack.
You can in fact cast the same blessing on a unit twice, it's effects just don't work twice.
You can in fact cast the same maledictions on the same unit twice , it's affects are cumulative.
Terrify is particularly interesting because what happens when you cast it on a unit that is in Combat? And they fail their test?
Does the unit fighting them get to make a sweeping advance? Do they get to roll to wipe them out?
Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Cars are made by manufacturers. Remember different cars are made by different manufacturers.
We substitute in Toyotas and the sentence changes meaning:
Toyotas are made by manufacturers. Remember different Toyotas are made by different manufacturers.
This is exactly what you are doing with your substitution. The different in the Maledictions stacking rule is referring to differently named powers not different instances of the same power.
Once again look at Terrify. "Whilst this power is in effect" so if you cast it once twice or a thousand times the power is in effect thus the unit suffers a single -1 Ld takes a single morale check etc. It is a true false statement. Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
FlingitNow wrote: Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.
Flingit wrote:Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Does this work for other things as well?
For instance, do we need specific to shoot Bolters?
Do we need specific permission to move models with our elbows?
Or are you inventing this specific permission requirement because you don't like that general permissions allow Terrify to stack with itself?
Flingit wrote:Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Or are you inventing this specific permission requirement because you don't like that general permissions allow Terrify to stack with itself?
This right here.
Every thread I have seen in the last couple of days that has been in a hated discussion is one side with rules backing their position against another with players who "think" it shouldn't be a certain way specifically because the wording is not exact enough for them or it would be "game breaking" a concept I find funny as this is how it reads in the rules, how it is taught at shops, how it i played by hardcore veterans.
All these boil down to one side not wanting to admit that the rules do not support their positions, but their feelings on how it should be should be taken into account. It is HYWPI and not RAW
milkboy wrote: I bet I know which thread you are think of, Zodiark. :p
Because this curiously reminded me of it. The they-did-it -for-one-and-not-the-other-so-it-must-be-a-mistake-which-will-get-faq-soon argument.
Oh I don't think it will be FAQ'd. I think its RAW, I believe it was intended to be this way and as there is nothing to contradict this within the rules, we apply it as RAW. People can house rule it all they want but it won't change RAW
Zodiark, Allow me to please explain what you are currently seeing, as it is the result of old scars on this Forum that where old when I was young. There has been a long, very long and very annoying, problem within the rules concerning Psychic Powers that never been addressed by Game Workshop in an acceptable Format. That is the simple question of 'do Psychic Powers Stack by default?' which has it's own unique followers that always boil down to either Yay or Nay, and neither side has shifted their stance since that very first day. This problem has been made far more problematic by Tournaments, Game Workshop sponsored ones at that, ruling in favor of either group at what seems to be a whim. Then we get a completely new Edition and even though this clearly has to be known to the Authors they once more give us Rules which suggest heavily but do not outright state the answer!
Personally I would not allow them to Stack as there is a great deal of evidence as to intent, but I don't use Psykers or fight that many of them in my tiny group so it is moot for me: - Why mention 'Different Maledictions Stack?' - Why would specific Powers contain Clauses to state they stack with themselves? - Do we really need a definition for what 'Same' means?
P.S: The question of ' is something is Game Breaking' should be irrelevant as this Forum is here to debate the Rules, an opponent always has the Rule Supported right to call 'cheese' and walk away. Curiously, one of the things I found to be very Game breaking was written into the Rules now... so go figure.
JinxDragon wrote: Zodiark,
Allow me to please explain what you are currently seeing, as it is the result of old scars on this Forum that where old when I was young. There has been a long, very long and very annoying, problem within the rules concerning Psychic Powers that never been addressed by Game Workshop in an acceptable Format. That is the simple question of 'do Psychic Powers Stack by default?' which has it's own unique followers that always boil down to either Yay or Nay, and neither side has shifted their stance since that very first day. This problem has been made far more problematic by Tournaments, Game Workshop sponsored ones at that, ruling in favor of either group at what seems to be a whim. Then we get a completely new Edition and even though this clearly has to be known to the Authors they once more give us Rules which suggest heavily but do not outright state the answer!
Personally I would not allow them to Stack as there is a great deal of evidence as to intent, but I don't use Psykers or fight that many of them in my tiny group so it is moot for me:
- Why mention 'Different Maledictions Stack?'
- Why would specific Powers contain Clauses to state they stack with themselves?
- Do we really need a definition for what 'Same' means?
P.S:
The question of ' is something is Game Breaking' should be irrelevant as this Forum is here to debate the Rules, an opponent always has the Rule Supported right to call 'cheese' and walk away.
Curiously, one of the things I found to be very Game breaking was written into the Rules now... so go figure.
Yeah I noticed a lot of entrenchment on both sides.
The way I see it, I read the RAW and unless the RAW states that they do not stack, then they can. If it states that they cannot, then they cannot. Defining same, defining different is interesting because I highly doubt that many posters in these forums are trained to actually interpret the English language in a way someone who went to school to study English and someone who teaches it would. When you take this away, all you have are guys picking and choosing from a web dictionary, but not really understanding what is being said.
I mentioned game breaking as a mod refuses to consider a valid argument because he "feels" it would "break the game" and I agree, feelings have no place in a discussion, neither do opinions for the most part but YMDC is really about how people interpret things otherwise it would be called RAW and people can simply get examples and yes and no without opinions or argument.
JinxDragon wrote: Zodiark,
Allow me to please explain what you are currently seeing, as it is the result of old scars on this Forum that where old when I was young. There has been a long, very long and very annoying, problem within the rules concerning Psychic Powers that never been addressed by Game Workshop in an acceptable Format. That is the simple question of 'do Psychic Powers Stack by default?' which has it's own unique followers that always boil down to either Yay or Nay, and neither side has shifted their stance since that very first day.
I, for one, have shifted my stance several times during the course of this debate and as the editions have changed. I am perfectly willing and able to be convinced that I'm wrong by a logical argument based on the rules, which is why I am on the pro-stacking side for multiple uses of the same Malediction in 7th edition.
PrinceRaven wrote: I, for one, have shifted my stance several times during the course of this debate and as the editions have changed.
I am perfectly willing and able to be convinced that I'm wrong by a logical argument based on the rules, which is why I am on the pro-stacking side for multiple uses of the same Malediction in 7th edition.
I can see players deciding beforehand on it if it is too clear for one or both players, but having a flat out no I do not agree with as it doesn't state no.
FlingitNow wrote: Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.
Have a nice day!
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
FlingitNow wrote: Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.
Have a nice day!
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
Really don't want to argue but I'll answer your post and be done with it.
Define permissive, you have your answer. Good day.
FlingitNow wrote: That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.
FlingitNow wrote: That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.
In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol
In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Hollismason wrote: Okay finally got home and got the exact wording which is completely different than blessings
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Now for Comparison what Blessing say which is completely different wording
The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative.
So now I don't know what the hell.
Ugh I feel like writing a letter to GW.
These two rules quotes solve the debate. For Blessings, the benefite of any one particular blessing, that's one particular power meaning TYPE of power can only be gained once per turn....but benefites from DIFFERENT blessings are cumulative. DIFFERENT means DIFFERENT. The power is NOT different just because it comes from a different psyker. Two dudes have Enfeeble, it's the same damn power.
Bonuses and penalties from DIFFERENT Maledictions are always cumulative. There's the answer right freakin' there. MOVE ON.
FlingitNow wrote: Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.
Have a nice day!
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
That is not how a permissive rule set works either. You are allowed to cast multiple copies of the same power on one unit. There is no clause that states that the effects do not stack. Allowing them to stack is well within the parameters set by the rules.
FlingitNow wrote: Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.
Have a nice day!
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
That is not how a permissive rule set works either. You are allowed to cast multiple copies of the same power on one unit. There is no clause that states that the effects do not stack. Allowing them to stack is well within the parameters set by the rules.
This is correct. As there is nothing responding in the negative in this situation, the positive goes into effect and they stack, until something states otherwise. People are free to go HYWPI if they want but they cannot say that this way is not RAW as there is nothing within the rules that states that they do not stack.
Because some maledictions have effects that are cumulative with themselves and some maledictions do not. So the word different means you know you can always stack different powers while preventing "I cast Doom on your unit twice and the rulebook says it's cumulative, so you have to reroll your saves twice!"
Let's be honest, we all know there would be people arguing that if the rule did not include the word "different".
azreal13 wrote: Then explain the presence of the word "different" in the sentence about Maledictions stacking.
If the intent was to allow all maledictions to stack, then the inclusion of the word different is functionally redundant.
Refer to post immediately before yours, you are referring to a specific word and inferring a meaning within that context. This is an interpretation, not a statement of the rules. Notice how Blessings specifically state that they do not stack, notice how Maledictions do not have this statement on them. The answer is apparent from the start.
FlingitNow wrote: That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.
In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol
In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative
Incorrect PrinceRaven was right (and what we are disagreeing about is does general permission to stack psychic powers exist) it does need a rule to tell you what not to do. Again you completely misunderstand what a permissive ruleset is.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
No again you need permission to stack. The pro-stacking side believe there is general permission to stack because their is permission to resolve powers and there is permission for multiple modifiers to stack that. But permission to resolve is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Particularly when you look at the wording in the powers that we are told to resolve (whilst this power is in effect). RaW Terrify doesn't stack, most likely RaI Terrify does not stack. If you want to play by your own houserule that is does stack play it that way and mark your discussion on here as HYWPI. Or provide a rule that gives general permission for psychic powers to stack or a rule that allows you to ignore the "whilst this power is in effect" wording that appears in Terrify.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!
FlingitNow wrote: That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.
In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol
In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative
Incorrect PrinceRaven was right (and what we are disagreeing about is does general permission to stack psychic powers exist) it does need a rule to tell you what not to do. Again you completely misunderstand what a permissive ruleset is.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
No again you need permission to stack. The pro-stacking side believe there is general permission to stack because their is permission to resolve powers and there is permission for multiple modifiers to stack that. But permission to resolve is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Particularly when you look at the wording in the powers that we are told to resolve (whilst this power is in effect). RaW Terrify doesn't stack, most likely RaI Terrify does not stack. If you want to play by your own houserule that is does stack play it that way and mark your discussion on here as HYWPI. Or provide a rule that gives general permission for psychic powers to stack or a rule that allows you to ignore the "whilst this power is in effect" wording that appears in Terrify.
So you play by needing permission to do something, that is fine, you have the permission to do something until the rules state otherwise. Again, define permissive, you have your answer.
I understand a permissive ruleset, I also understand the definition of the terms individually as well hence I repeat the above line.
Unless something directly states that you cannot stack them, you have no ruling whatsoever to support a claim of them not stacking, hence, you cannot state that they do not stack. Rules as Intended, you simply cannot do because you do not know what they intended because you were not there. Rules as Interpreted is a matter of opinion which is HYWPI so I ask you to please mark it before you post.
Me, I read the rules, I follow what it says and as it does not say that I cannot do something, then I can.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!
How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.
I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.
Permissive doesn't mean what people think it means, it merely means "allowing great freedom" it does not mean "can only do what explicitly allowed to do."
So to assert that 40K is a permissive rule set in one sense is completely accurate, but to argue that you can only do what you have permission to do is not. Nowhere in the rules is it defined in this way, it is simply a convention adopted because the alternative (you can do everything unless explicitly told no) would be utterly insane.
azreal13 wrote: Permissive doesn't mean what people think it means, it merely means "allowing great freedom" it does not mean "can only do what explicitly allowed to do."
So to assert that 40K is a permissive rule set in one sense is completely accurate, but to argue that you can only do what you have permission to do is not. Nowhere in the rules is it defined in this way, it is simply a convention adopted because the alternative (you can do everything unless explicitly told no) would be utterly insane.
Except that is how it works for literally every game ever made. Working within the rules provided in literally every game you are told specifically what you can and cannot do. This is not insane, this is logical.
Permissive definition from the dictionary means, allowing or characterized by great excessive of freedom of behavior, its second definition is allowed but not obligatory; optional. You are given leeway but not absolute leeway as you are attempting to do by claiming "permissive ruleset"
A permissive ruleset simply allows you to make allowances for any issue that comes within the rules of the game and decide how you would go about doing it which is exactly what both sides are doing this. One side is doing it logically, the other is arguing the use and definition of the word different. It's similar to Bill Clinton asking for a definition and clarification for the word "It"
Hence, logically, until told otherwise, following Rules as Written, you cannot go wrong.
FlingitNow wrote: That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...
True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.
In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol
In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative
Incorrect PrinceRaven was right (and what we are disagreeing about is does general permission to stack psychic powers exist) it does need a rule to tell you what not to do. Again you completely misunderstand what a permissive ruleset is.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
No again you need permission to stack. The pro-stacking side believe there is general permission to stack because their is permission to resolve powers and there is permission for multiple modifiers to stack that. But permission to resolve is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Particularly when you look at the wording in the powers that we are told to resolve (whilst this power is in effect). RaW Terrify doesn't stack, most likely RaI Terrify does not stack. If you want to play by your own houserule that is does stack play it that way and mark your discussion on here as HYWPI. Or provide a rule that gives general permission for psychic powers to stack or a rule that allows you to ignore the "whilst this power is in effect" wording that appears in Terrify.
There is no rule stating that "Unless otherwise stated, no effects as a result of maledictions may stack". No offense meant but your assertion is simply incorrect and baseless.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!
How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.
I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.
My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"
My response was "I am having issues believing this"
Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.
You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.
Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?
A permissive ruleset is one in which you require permission in the rules in order to do something. This is as opposed to a restrictive ruleset in which the ruleset tells you what is restricted and everything not on the rules is permitted.
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!
How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.
I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.
My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"
My response was "I am having issues believing this"
Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.
You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.
Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?
Actually you were condescending in your initial post, so I clarified. Then you insulted me so I clarified again. No comprehension issues here
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!
How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.
I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.
My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"
My response was "I am having issues believing this"
Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.
You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.
Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?
Actually you were condescending in your initial post, so I clarified. Then you insulted me so I clarified again. No comprehension issues here
Suuuure.
If I insulted you, better get busy with those yellow triangles!
Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us
Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!
How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.
I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.
My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"
My response was "I am having issues believing this"
Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.
You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.
Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?
Actually you were condescending in your initial post, so I clarified. Then you insulted me so I clarified again. No comprehension issues here
Suuuure.
If I insulted you, better get busy with those yellow triangles!
I'm fine. I know my own comprehension abilities, I need to prove nothing here, on the contrary, some here should brush up on theirs. Just felt it was a little uncalled for and I was omw out until I saw this lol.
Then we kept going and going and going. And now we are here.
Also.
"Permissive Ruleset isn't a thing.
A permissive rule is a thing, but a permissive ruleset is some thing constructed, apparently by the wargaming community.
A ruleset is likely to contain both permissive and restrictive rules.
Nowhere is 40k ever defined as a permissive ruleset by any source acceptable by YMDC. "
This is a core problem here. YMDC is not a source for rules. It is a discussion on rule interpretation, not rule fact, it is a forum for theory crafting and opinions, nothing more. There is nothing official in regards to "Permissive Rules" anywhere within the BRB so by RAW it does not exist, I agree with this.
40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).
The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.
PrinceRaven wrote: 40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).
The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.
Actually every game ever made is a combination of both permissive and restrictive as they all tell you what you can and cannot do.
azreal13 wrote: No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.
That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.
PrinceRaven wrote: 40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).
The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.
Actually every game ever made is a combination of both permissive and restrictive as they all tell you what you can and cannot do.
Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.
PrinceRaven wrote: Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.
D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.
PrinceRaven wrote: Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either: a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.
D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.
That would not be D, that would be A. Not Everything that is restricted is here in the ruleset.
The rules do not say that I can't cover my models with a blanked and claim that you have no Line of sight to them, but that doesn't mean I can do it...
Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted.
So you can not do anything unless the rules state that you can do something.
There are also restrictive elements in the ruleset, like an Immobilized vehicle can not move, but that is all a part of the Permissive Ruleset as a whole.
azreal13 wrote: No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.
That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.
We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.
Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.
PrinceRaven wrote: 40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).
The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.
Actually every game ever made is a combination of both permissive and restrictive as they all tell you what you can and cannot do.
Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.
No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)
azreal13 wrote: No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.
That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.
We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.
Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.
It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.
FlingitNow wrote: Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:
Cars are made by manufacturers. Remember different cars are made by different manufacturers.
We substitute in Toyotas and the sentence changes meaning:
Toyotas are made by manufacturers. Remember different Toyotas are made by different manufacturers.
This is exactly what you are doing with your substitution. The different in the Maledictions stacking rule is referring to differently named powers not different instances of the same power.
Once again look at Terrify. "Whilst this power is in effect" so if you cast it once twice or a thousand times the power is in effect thus the unit suffers a single -1 Ld takes a single morale check etc. It is a true false statement. Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.
Yes but I can argue the complete opposite of what you are saying which is why I said word substitution seems to imply evidently that Blessing in fact do not absolutely stack. However , Maledictions do. The wording is completely different, and Blessing is written very specifically to say that it Never does and Malediction is written in such a way to always.
You are given permission by the rules to stack powers by Malediction itself.
PrinceRaven wrote: Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.
D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.
That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?
azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)
But we're digressing off topic...
But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.
azreal13 wrote: No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.
That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.
We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.
Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.
It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.
Second point is agreed
you've been playing to much magic. Nothing is timestamped, or can you cite a rule for timestamping? any terrify is the same as any other terrify, they are the same in every way.
azreal13 wrote: No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.
That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.
We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.
Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.
It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.
Second point is agreed
you've been playing to much magic. Nothing is timestamped, or can you cite a rule for timestamping? any terrify is the same as any other terrify, they are the same in every way.
I was using it as an example. And according to BRB resolving any abilities and such is up to the turn player, there is a line in there I recall seeing earlier. It also allows the turn player to resolve shooting and combats in whatever order he wants as well.
They are the same spell. Multiple Psykers casting the spell, the effects would indeed stack according to the rules as there is nothing to state that they don't.
PrinceRaven wrote: Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.
D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.
That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?
azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)
But we're digressing off topic...
But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.
C wouldn't work for this. And to answer the asinine example, if there was a rule in there about beating your opponent in the head, do what it says, as it mentions nothing it does not mean you get to do it. There are specific examples in the text with Psyker power stacking and not stacking. The issue at hand is whether terrify stacks as it does not specifically say. Looking at other types of powers we notice that some explicitly state that they don't stack and others do not state. Seeing as there is no negative, you affirm the positive.
azreal13 wrote: No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.
That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.
We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.
Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.
It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.
Second point is agreed
you've been playing to much magic. Nothing is timestamped, or can you cite a rule for timestamping? any terrify is the same as any other terrify, they are the same in every way.
I was using it as an example. And according to BRB resolving any abilities and such is up to the turn player, there is a line in there I recall seeing earlier. It also allows the turn player to resolve shooting and combats in whatever order he wants as well.
They are the same spell. Multiple Psykers casting the spell, the effects would indeed stack according to the rules as there is nothing to state that they don't.
You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.
Zodiark wrote:That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?
azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)
But we're digressing off topic...
But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.
C wouldn't work for this. And to answer the asinine example, if there was a rule in there about beating your opponent in the head, do what it says, as it mentions nothing it does not mean you get to do it. There are specific examples in the text with Psyker power stacking and not stacking. The issue at hand is whether terrify stacks as it does not specifically say. Looking at other types of powers we notice that some explicitly state that they don't stack and others do not state. Seeing as there is no negative, you affirm the positive.
So what you're saying is that if there is no rule, then we don't get to do it? That is pretty much exactly the definition of a permissive ruleset, so I don't get why you're saying it isn't one.
sirlynchmob wrote:You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.
I'm still waiting for you to adequately explain how Terrify, listed as a Psychic Power in the Telepathy discipline, is in fact a Special Rule instead of a Psychic Power.
Zodiark wrote:That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?
azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)
But we're digressing off topic...
But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.
C wouldn't work for this. And to answer the asinine example, if there was a rule in there about beating your opponent in the head, do what it says, as it mentions nothing it does not mean you get to do it. There are specific examples in the text with Psyker power stacking and not stacking. The issue at hand is whether terrify stacks as it does not specifically say. Looking at other types of powers we notice that some explicitly state that they don't stack and others do not state. Seeing as there is no negative, you affirm the positive.
So what you're saying is that if there is no rule, then we don't get to do it? That is pretty much exactly the definition of a permissive ruleset, so I don't get why you're saying it isn't one.
sirlynchmob wrote:You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.
I'm still waiting for you to adequately explain how Terrify, listed as a Psychic Power in the Telepathy discipline, is in fact a Special Rule instead of a Psychic Power.
It's both a special rule and a Psyker power. Just like Psyker is both a special rule and a unit type.
sirlynchmob wrote:You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.
I'm still waiting for you to adequately explain how Terrify, listed as a Psychic Power in the Telepathy discipline, is in fact a Special Rule instead of a Psychic Power.
Pysker itself is a special rule, maledictions do one of two things, not both. Either they reduce a characteristic OR they inflict special rules. The usage of "while this power is in effect" makes it a special rule. As a special rule it has permission to be a modifier. As it's only one power that penalizes abilities it is a special rule.
RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.
sirlynchmob wrote: RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.
This is 100% incorrect.
Psychic powers can modify characteristics, Hammerhand does...
Because hammerhand is also a special rule and states whilst the power is in effect.
so I'm still 100% correct and you must realize this as you offered no rules to the contrary.
To quote the relevant rules see page 8 without being a special rule (or wargear) you can't stack ANY psychic powers (even different ones) as the modifier rules now require you to be a Special Rule or piece of Wargear to work.
Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Both of those are literally copy/pasted from the rules stating that yes in fact psychic powers can modify characteristics and even gives you the range of which you can do that in.
Well they took time to explain further in blessings, yet blessings have the same wording as different stack. I'm in the club that no you cannot stack the same malefic over and over and over.
Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Both of those are literally copy/pasted from the rules stating that yes in fact psychic powers can modify characteristics and even gives you the range of which you can do that in.
What were you thinking when you made this post? Do you genuinely believe this added to the debate? Did you genuinely believe I was dumb enough to not know what these rules actually say?
Now you claim Maledictions have permission to be cumulative with themselves please post the rule that states this.
Hollismason wrote: Except the part where they literally say , this is cumulative which gives it permission.
Cool where is that? If you'd quoted that at the start or at some point in this thread the debate would be over. So quote please.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." (Models and units section, Multiple modifiers sub-section).
Nothing about special rules, just rules.
FlingitNow wrote: Now you claim Maledictions have permission to be cumulative with themselves please post the rule that states this.
"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section, Manifesting Psychic Powers sub-section, Resolve Psychic Power heading)
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?
Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself?
It does not need explicit permission as you already have permission to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry. The entry says -1 Weapon skill, you apply a -1 weapon skill. If that power is cast again, you have to apply another -1 weapon skill as per multiple modifiers, since we have permission to resolve the psychic power, and then resolve that power cast from a different psyker on the target unit.
Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?
The part that says apply a -1, the rules of math, which the game uses, means that 4-1-1 =2
Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.
Different Maledictions are cumulative does not mean that the same Malediction is not cumulative.
The RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect" This power is referring to that particular casting of Terrify.
Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.
That is not what that says...
It says "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics" (Models & Units section, Modifiers sub-section).
It does not say [Only certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics]
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules are a way that characteristics can be modified, but not exclusively.
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?
Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.
Where does it say in the rules set that you need permission to perform every exact action that the rules already allow? I want a page number and paragraph here since you have been asking for that the entire thread.
Also, different was never defined by the rules as "Different type of malediction". It could easily mean "Different instances of Maledictions" or, more relevantly, it could mean "Multiple instances of the same malediction spell may stack". Assuming the former definition over the later is RAI and thus not within the scope of this discussion.
If you have proof that the former definition is true then I'll take my assertion back.
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself?
Resolving powers gives you permission to stack maledictions.
The RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect" This power is referring to that particular casting of Terrify.
This is incorrect. "this Power" means Terrify. There is no mechanic for determining multiple castings of the same power. Therefore "whilst this power is in effect" means that malediction generally will not stack with itself.
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?
Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.
Where does it say in the rules set that you need permission to perform every exact action that the rules already allow? I want a page number and paragraph here since you have been asking for that the entire thread.
Also, different was never defined by the rules as "Different type of malediction". It could easily mean "Different instances of Maledictions" or, more relevantly, it could mean "Multiple instances of the same malediction spell may stack". Assuming the former definition over the later is RAI and thus not within the scope of this discussion.
If you have proof that the former definition is true then I'll take my assertion back.
Permissive ruleset. Or show me the rule that says I can't smash your models up with a hammer.
Where does it even say that. Please provide in telecommunication written format, braille, and printed certified US Mail, along with a signed legal document asserting it's authenticity from the Design staff of Gamesworkshop.
It's evident that it's pretty unclear on what the hell they meant to happen with Maledictions. I say it stacks because that is how I am going to interpret it after reading on it and seeing the arguments and my understanding of the written english word.
Of course I read things differently, that's what I do in real life is write briefs etc.. etc..
DeathReaper wrote: "whilst this power is in effect" means the terrify that was just cast.
We look at terrify when it is cast and resolve it.
Ergo "whilst this power is in effect" is talking about that casting of Terrify.
So if I cast Terrify on a unit is the power in effect, yes or no?
If I cast Terrify on the unit again, is the power in effect, yes or no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: Where does it even say that. Please provide in telecommunication written format, braille, and printed certified US Mail, along with a signed legal document asserting it's authenticity from the Design staff of Gamesworkshop.
It's evident that it's pretty unclear on what the hell they meant to happen with Maledictions. I say it stacks because that is how I am going to interpret it after reading on it and seeing the arguments and my understanding of the written english word.
Of course I read things differently, that's what I do in real life is write briefs etc.. etc..
It simply doesn't say anywhere in rules that I can't smash your models up with a hammer. So you believe I can?
The underlined pretty much sums up the side for pro-stacking. I interpret it that they don't stack because the rules never give them permission to stack and the wording in each psychic power that we are supposed to use to resolves them prevents them from stacking.
Though they either stack simply because nothing, other than the entry in each psychic power, says they don't.
Or if you believe it is a permissive ruleset then they don't stack because they have no permission to and each entry we qre supposed to resolve them by states that the modifiers only apply whilst the power is in effect which means casting it once or a thousand times is irrelevant the power is in effect...
Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...
Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?
Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.
Where does it say in the rules set that you need permission to perform every exact action that the rules already allow? I want a page number and paragraph here since you have been asking for that the entire thread. Also, different was never defined by the rules as "Different type of malediction". It could easily mean "Different instances of Maledictions" or, more relevantly, it could mean "Multiple instances of the same malediction spell may stack". Assuming the former definition over the later is RAI and thus not within the scope of this discussion.
If you have proof that the former definition is true then I'll take my assertion back.
Permissive ruleset. Or show me the rule that says I can't smash your models up with a hammer.
The point that has been made, and which you ignore, is that anything applying a modifier already has general permission to stack - its called "follows the rules of mathematics", which this game follows
4 - 1 - 1 = 2 because you are told hot to treat multiple modifiers, including more than one addition, subtraction, etc.
So permission to multiply resolve, i.e, "stack", modifiers has been found. now find a restriction. To use your example - I have general permission to smash your models. You are asking for a specific line allowing me to smash your models [with a hammer]. I have permission to apply modifiers according to the rules of mathematics; you are asking for specific permission to apply modifiers [from maledictions] according to the rules of mathematics. This is, of course, not how the rules actually work.
Note: parsing a sentence which does NOT include "only" as if it includes the word "Only" is an instant fail. Or, in other words, constantly referring to the line which talks about different maledictions as stacking AS IF it says "only" different maledictions - turning a functional reminder into a restriction - is a failed argument, and will mean you concede the entire point.
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Which are essneitally the same as the last half dozen threads, where Fling et al resoundly ignored then.
No matter how much proof you can throw, it always come back to this word "stacking" acquiring mythical signifiance that requires, somehow, specific permission to use, even when general permission demonstrably exists.
Its like asking for specific permission to be able to deploy into a building entirely within your deployment zone, despite being told you can deploy anywhere. It isnt needed here, and it isnt needed for applying multiple modifiers from the same source
FlingitNow wrote: Do we have multiple modifiers? What are modifiers according to the rules?
So if I cast Terrify, is it in effect?
If I cast Terrify again on the same unit, is it in effect?
Terrify is a psychic power which bestows a rule modifying your characteristic.
You resolve it twice, so you have 2 modifiers, or MULTIPLE modifiers.
Find denial of the permission to resolve. Page and para, or concede again.
Before asking me to concede perhaps read the rules in question. Do you know what a Modifier is? Read page 8.
Then read what Terrify does. It doesn't do what you seem to think it does.
You know I am perfectly well aware of whaty a modifier is, having "debated" you on this topic more than once. The passive aggressive insults from you are not helpful.
Not in 7th Ed. What does Terrify say? Is there a trigger for its effects beyond simply being manifested? For instance does the power require the power to be in effect to generate a number of effects on the target?
How about answering those questions? Theyve already been given this thread....
Again, answer PRs detailed post, exactly. Show where permission is denied. If not, concede that your "special" permission to stack modifiers is given in multiple modifiers
I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.
FlingitNow wrote: I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.
Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.
You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.
Nem wrote: This is no tapping nothing different to where these threads have been before at this stage.
Well there is the new rule that Blessings are now non-cumulative, which I hoped would quell the anti-stacking side, as most of their arguments were about how psychic powers were intended to be non-cumulative or how broken certain Blessings are when applied cumulatively. Clearly, I should not have trusted to hope, for it has forsaken this sub-forum.
FlingitNow wrote: I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.
I would agree if you hand indeed actually shown anything of the sort.
FlingitNow wrote: I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.
Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.
You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.
This sums up both arguments perfectly. If you believe that the rules are a permissive ruleset then you can't stack Maledictions. However if like the pro-stacking side you do not believe the rules are a permissive ruleset then nothing says you can't stack.
Also nothing says I can't add new units to the table at any point in the game. Or choose to take an extra shooting phase in the middle of your turn.
So which do you believe? Maledictions don't stack or I can just remove all your models from the table and declare myself winner at any point? After all the rules say I can't voluntarily move my models off the table therefore I can move yours right?
FlingitNow wrote: I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.
Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.
You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.
This sums up both arguments perfectly. If you believe that the rules are a permissive ruleset then you can't stack Maledictions. However if like the pro-stacking side you do not believe the rules are a permissive ruleset then nothing says you can't stack.
Also nothing says I can't add new units to the table at any point in the game. Or choose to take an extra shooting phase in the middle of your turn.
So which do you believe? Maledictions don't stack or I can just remove all your models from the table and declare myself winner at any point? After all the rules say I can't voluntarily move my models off the table therefore I can move yours right?
1. This game isn't a permissive ruleset, that is a collective mindset of the players, not the rules as written in the BRB.
2. Illogical scenarios do not help your argument.
3. Until GW recognizes this mythical "permissive" ruleset, it does not exist and therefore, according to your own argument, they do stack.
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.
"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"
I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?
It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'
If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.
"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"
I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?
It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'
If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.
Does the banners state that you cannot have more than one anywhere in the codex? If it does not then you can.
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.
"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"
I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?
It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'
If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.
Does the banners state that you cannot have more than one anywhere in the codex? If it does not then you can.
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.
"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"
I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?
It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'
If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.
Does the banners state that you cannot have more than one anywhere in the codex? If it does not then you can.
Yes they do, I can take 10 in a unit of nobz
So you can have multiples.
Does it say that they do not stack? If it does not then they do.
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.
"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"
I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?
It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'
If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.
A) Way to bring a 4th edition rule into a 7th edition duscission.
B) WAAAgh banners are worded non-cumulatively. If a mob has 1 banner it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS, if the mob has 5 banners it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS.
C) The -1 leadership penalty from Terrify is not worded in this way, so I do not see how it is relevant to the current discussion.
PrinceRaven wrote: Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".
Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.
"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"
I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?
It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'
If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.
A) Way to bring a 4th edition rule into a 7th edition duscission.
B) WAAAgh banners are worded non-cumulatively. If a mob has 1 banner it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS, if the mob has 5 banners it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS.
C) The -1 leadership penalty from Terrify is not worded in this way, so I do not see how it is relevant to the current discussion.
Here, why don't you answer your own question
Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.
The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.
Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.
I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.
I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.
It's a really basic concept, a permissive ruleset is just a way of saying "in this set of rules you need to be have permission from the rules in order to do something".
I don't understand how that's complete BS when it's a core concept of game design.
Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.
The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.
Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.
Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.
The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.
I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.
I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.
I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.
It's a really basic concept, a permissive ruleset is just a way of saying "in this set of rules you need to be have permission from the rules in order to do something".
I don't understand how that's complete BS when it's a core concept of game design.
Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.
The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.
Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.
Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.
The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.
I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.
I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.
I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.
It's a really basic concept, a permissive ruleset is just a way of saying "in this set of rules you need to be have permission from the rules in order to do something".
I don't understand how that's complete BS when it's a core concept of game design.
Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.
The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.
Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.
Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.
The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.
I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.
No, I just think that overall it's harmful and it's like the "Drop the Mic" of YMDC at this point. People always circle around to it it's like Godwins Law of YMDC.
Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.
The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.
Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.
Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.
The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.
I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.
If you think 2 terrifies is a combination of rules, then 2 banners is also a combination of rules. The fact that you can't see that it is the exact same argument means you are arguing from personal opinion and not RAW. so feel free to mark all your posts HYWPI.
Because two banners is also a combination of rules that each apply effects on the unit, in the case of two banners you have a +1 bonus being applied to the unit twice.
yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers.
really? if one is a modifier, than 2 is definitely RAW multiple modifiers.
This is why the stacking side is wrong and should know they are. All the arguments they use against the banner also prohibits terrify from stacking. Any argument for terrify to stack allows the banners to stack. If you can't use one answer for both, you are not using RAW.
Hollismason wrote: No, I just think that overall it's harmful and it's like the "Drop the Mic" of YMDC at this point. People always circle around to it it's like Godwins Law of YMDC.
It's just a bad argument.
It is not a bad argument, it is literally how the rules are written.
The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.
When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:
1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.
However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.
By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:
2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.
So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?
3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.
Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.
If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.
However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.
It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.
Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.
But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.
While that is correct, it's still not a "well it doesn't say this , then you cannot do this".
The rules do not have to explicitly give examples of each and every example that happens with in the game as it would be impossible to do so.
The rules are a guideline to playing the game and players have to use intelligence and a understanding of the english language however poorly it may be written to interpret the authors intent in certain circumstances and how to apply these rules.
It's literally in the rules that the game is actually interpretive which is why we have YMDC in the first place to see what the best argument is for interpreting the language and appliance of rules.
You stating , "it's a permissive ruleset, it does not give permission, you cannot do" . Isn't actually a valid argument because of this. Multiple people have already given examples of why it stacks and why that wording is bad and why it probably is actually intended to stack.
I'm reading english and interpreting the syntax of that sentence, you are argueing about hammers and illogical analogies.
I have literally broken down the syntax of that sentence and no one can argue with me on that statement. You just can't do it so you go back to a safety blanket of " the rules are permissive", that's not a argument. Actually argue with me , give me something real not some BS that just keeps repeating over and over again.
Have a real debate , be here, be present. Stop falling back on this illusionary " Golden Rule of Permissive ruleset" that doesn't exist, because the only "Golden Rule" in 40k is that it is actually all interpretative and up to the players themselves to decide how the rules interact.
You cannot and have not presented to me a valid argument against my literal use of syntax to show that this is how the rule works and how Blessing specifically differ.
Not a single person has come forward to argue with me about this because they can't.
Hollismason wrote: While that is correct, it's still not a "well it doesn't say this , then you cannot do this".
The rules do not have to explicitly give examples of each and every example that happens with in the game as it would be impossible to do so.
The rules are a guideline to playing the game and players have to use intelligence and a understanding of the english language however poorly it may be written to interpret the authors intent in certain circumstances and how to apply these rules.
It's literally in the rules that the game is actually interpretive which is why we have YMDC in the first place to see what the best argument is for interpreting the language and appliance of rules.
You stating , "it's a permissive ruleset, it does not give permission, you cannot do" . Isn't actually a valid argument because of this. Multiple people have already given examples of why it stacks and why that wording is bad and why it probably is actually intended to stack.
I'm reading english, you are argueing about hammers.
This was the problem in the threads over the weekend. You have people who are looking for specific instances of every possibility which is impossible to do. Then you have people arguing English, using critical thinking skills, logic and reading comprehension and others who are arguing for an absence of confirmation. Like those threads, this will spiral around until it is locked as well.
Hollismason wrote: Conflicts can be resolved, Confrontation can not be resolved without a stalemate or a loss.
.
True enough. This will most likely end in a stalemate, though the side distribution is roughly 85% in favor of them stacking which tbh is a win, but alas, people are stubborn
Given I was a vocal antistack back in 6th. I agree the lack of specific addition to maledictions wording as with blessings casts more doubt on it being nonstacking. I would still play it nonstacking by preference but I don't feel a need to argue against sracking in 7th.
It would be nice to get an faq on the matter but I'm not fussed playing it either way.
sirlynchmob wrote: If you think 2 terrifies is a combination of rules, then 2 banners is also a combination of rules. The fact that you can't see that it is the exact same argument means you are arguing from personal opinion and not RAW. so feel free to mark all your posts HYWPI.
Because two banners is also a combination of rules that each apply effects on the unit, in the case of two banners you have a +1 bonus being applied to the unit twice.
yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers.
really? if one is a modifier, than 2 is definitely RAW multiple modifiers.
This is why the stacking side is wrong and should know they are. All the arguments they use against the banner also prohibits terrify from stacking. Any argument for terrify to stack allows the banners to stack. If you can't use one answer for both, you are not using RAW.
Again, WAAAgh banner rules state that if the unit contains a banner it gets +1 WS. It is a conditional rule, Does the unit contain a banner?
Yes > It gets +1 WS No > It does not get +1 WS Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of banners in the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.
Bausk: Imagine a world in which Games Workshop actually releases FAQs more frequently than once in a blue moon and engages with the community to see which issues need to be FAQ'd.
sirlynchmob wrote: If you think 2 terrifies is a combination of rules, then 2 banners is also a combination of rules. The fact that you can't see that it is the exact same argument means you are arguing from personal opinion and not RAW. so feel free to mark all your posts HYWPI.
Because two banners is also a combination of rules that each apply effects on the unit, in the case of two banners you have a +1 bonus being applied to the unit twice.
yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers.
really? if one is a modifier, than 2 is definitely RAW multiple modifiers.
This is why the stacking side is wrong and should know they are. All the arguments they use against the banner also prohibits terrify from stacking. Any argument for terrify to stack allows the banners to stack. If you can't use one answer for both, you are not using RAW.
Again, WAAAgh banner rules state that if the unit contains a banner it gets +1 WS. It is a conditional rule, Does the unit contain a banner?
Yes > It gets +1 WS No > It does not get +1 WS Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of banners in the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.
Whilst this power is in effect,= It is a conditional rule, is the unit under the effect of terrify?
Yes > It gets -1 LD No > It does not get -1LD
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of terrifies on the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.
DeathReaper I think you need to read your own rather good description of a permissive ruleset. Ahriman is the only Psyker I'm aware of that can manifest the same power more than once. He has a specific exception to the rule about same power.
So we know that when they talk about whilst "this power" is in effect due to how they use same this power is the same named power not the same instance or the restriction on casting the same power more than once has no meaning.
sirlynchmob wrote: Whilst this power is in effect,= It is a conditional rule, is the unit under the effect of terrify?
Yes > It gets -1 LD No > It does not get -1LD
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of terrifies on the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.
Welcome to the non stacking side.
So your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that "the power" refers to Terrify in and of itself rather than the power manifested on the unit?
It seems we've reached the crux of it, if your interpretation of "the power" is the same as sirlynchmob's Terrify doesn't stack for you, if your interpretation is that "the power" is that single manifestation you have just resolved it does stack for you.
My interpretation is the second option, therefore Terrify stacks for me.
/thread over
DeathReaper wrote: Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.
Welcome to the stacking side.
Obviously it does not. Whilst Terrify is "in effect" the target has -1 LD. Maledictions are "in effect" from the time the power lands until the start of the Psychic Phase of the caster. Remove the 'whilst" part and the stacking side would be correct. However any power with that wording cannot stack with itself.
DeathReaper wrote: Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.
Welcome to the stacking side.
Obviously it does not. Whilst Terrify is "in effect" the target has -1 LD. Maledictions are "in effect" from the time the power lands until the start of the Psychic Phase of the caster. Remove the 'whilst" part and the stacking side would be correct. However any power with that wording cannot stack with itself.
Yes it can, any power with that wording can stack with itself because Whilst This Terrify that was just cast is "in effect"...
sirlynchmob wrote: Whilst this power is in effect,= It is a conditional rule, is the unit under the effect of terrify?
Yes > It gets -1 LD No > It does not get -1LD
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of terrifies on the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.
Welcome to the non stacking side.
So your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that "the power" refers to Terrify in and of itself rather than the power manifested on the unit?
It seems we've reached the crux of it, if your interpretation of "the power" is the same as sirlynchmob's Terrify doesn't stack for you, if your interpretation is that "the power" is that single manifestation you have just resolved it does stack for you.
My interpretation is the second option, therefore Terrify stacks for me.
/thread over
Let me verify, the power is in effect only when the psyker manifests it? Then how long will the Ld modifier last on the target unit?
Maledictions are in effect until the start of the psyker's next psychic phase, the -1 leadership penalty for each manifestation of Terrify will last until then.
DeathReaper wrote: Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.
Welcome to the stacking side.
Obviously it does not. Whilst Terrify is "in effect" the target has -1 LD. Maledictions are "in effect" from the time the power lands until the start of the Psychic Phase of the caster. Remove the 'whilst" part and the stacking side would be correct. However any power with that wording cannot stack with itself.
Yes it can, any power with that wording can stack with itself because Whilst This Terrify that was just cast is "in effect"...
The power is in effect for as long as it is on the unit. Six Terrify casts still equals one Terrify in effect. Hence -1 LD.
last edition had the same wording for blessings, and maledictions. Obviously they did not intend for them to stack as they modified the wording for people (hammerhand fanboy10001) would be able to understand that saying different blessing stack, does not mean the same blessing stacks.
Obviously from this thread the same people who thought saying different things stacks means the same things stack feel the same way.
its unfortunate GW doesnt do a good job editing, its obvious that they just did a copy past job of the last editions malediction section as most people who were "confused" (may also read as TFG rules lawyers) only tried to exploit the wording for blessings.
Fragile wrote: The power is in effect for as long as it is on the unit. Six Terrify casts still equals one Terrify in effect. Hence -1 LD.
* According to a particular interpretation of a certain phrase in the wording of Terrify that a minority of people believe.
Good to know you know what the majority thinks.
I can prove exactly when Terrify is in effect. And while that power is in effect, it gives a modifier. You have shown nothing to say otherwise. Your modifier rule does not come into play because each subsequent casting of Terrify does not change the fact that Terrify is already "in effect"
I have not seen many people share your viewpoint on what "the effect" means in these powers, and all of them online, everyone else whose opinion I've heard on the subject thinks it refers to the power you just manifested. So, in my experience, you are in the minority.
Without your... interesting interpretration of said rule you may manifest multiple inatances of Terrify on the same unit, thus having multiple powers in effect, leading to you having multiple modifiers.
No you haven't. You most certainly can target units with multiple instances of the spells, Blessing states clearly that particular or specific spells only apply once.
I cast X twice , it only get's the benefit once if it is a Blessing.
There's no such restriction on Maledictions for that as it's doesn't say particular and isn't clear enough to tell us what different Maledictions, if a Maledictions come from two different sources they are different Maledictions.
PrinceRaven wrote: I have not seen many people share your viewpoint on what "the effect" means in these powers, and all of them online, everyone else whose opinion I've heard on the subject thinks it refers to the power you just manifested. So, in my experience, you are in the minority.
Without your... interesting interpretration of said rule you may manifest multiple inatances of Terrify on the same unit, thus having multiple powers in effect, leading to you having multiple modifiers.
With your interpretation of terrify and different, when you use the same logic for stealth,
If you have a IC with stealth
a unit with stealth
and stealth ruins
As they are different by your use of the word, all 3 should stack right? because different special rules are cumulative. but in context with the rest of the rules, regardless of how many times you have a rule, it is only applied once. The power only means 'terrify' no matter how many times you've put it on a unit. You don't have multiple powers, nor multiple modifiers, you have a single rule.
And a while ago the minority used to think the world was round. popularity of an opinion doesn't mean it's right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: No you haven't. You most certainly can target units with multiple instances of the spells, Blessing states clearly that particular or specific spells only apply once.
I cast X twice , it only get's the benefit once if it is a Blessing.
There's no such restriction on Maledictions for that as it's doesn't say particular and isn't clear enough to tell us what different Maledictions, if a Maledictions come from two different sources they are different Maledictions.
You do realize we are not playing magic the gathering right?
You've completely misread my argument, I have never claimed that multiple uses of Terrify are different powers, I claimed that through following the rules for manifesting psychic powers you can have 2 of them in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple leadership modifiers.
Yes, but they didn't have the same sort of access to education and information 8000 years ago as we do today, I like to think most English speaking wargamers have a firm enough grasp on the English language that their opinion on the interpretation of what "the effect" refers to should have some weight.
You do realize we are not playing magic the gathering right?
When you are using Psychic powers, you are in a sense casting them. You expend Warp Charges in an attempt to "manifest" which to be fair, is no different than casting, just a word choice. Or are you arguing the two actions are completely different things, because they are not.
Either way. I see no real issue with them stacking. Due to an absence in the rulebook stating that they do not stack, the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this exclusion is that they can. Reference Blessings in the rulebook if you will. They have made an effort to directly state that Blessings do not stack.
The likelihood of this being an oversight for Maledictions is astronomically low as this was one of the core reasons for a 7th edition in the first place from what I have gathered from all the forums and players I have met.
The best decision here is not to argue about it amongst people that, more likely than not, we will never actually face in battle and either play it how it is played in your area, or decide ahead of time with your opponent. All we are doing here is hypothesizing from our own interpretations of what the rules state vs what we think the rules mean.
Sorry, not taking sides here. Let the dice and fate decide in your own games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: You've completely misread my argument, I have never claimed that multiple uses of Terrify are different powers, I claimed that through following the rules for manifesting psychic powers you can have 2 of them in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple leadership modifiers.
Yes, but they didn't have the same sort of access to education and information 8000 years ago as we do today, I like to think most English speaking wargamers have a firm enough grasp on the English language that their opinion on the interpretation of what "the effect" refers to should have some weight.
You would be surprised how much native English speakers do not understand even the fundamentals of their own language.
Hollismason wrote: No you haven't. You most certainly can target units with multiple instances of the spells, Blessing states clearly that particular or specific spells only apply once.
I cast X twice , it only get's the benefit once if it is a Blessing.
There's no such restriction on Maledictions for that as it's doesn't say particular and isn't clear enough to tell us what different Maledictions, if a Maledictions come from two different sources they are different Maledictions.
Different means not the same correct? If we know what same means we know what different means. Same means same named power or the restrictions on a unit casting the same power more than once or a Psyker generating the same power more than once mean nothing...
The rulebook only says the same Psyker cannot use the same power twice, not that the same power cannot be used more than once during the turn. So why wouldn't two powers, one from each of two Psykers, if hit, apply multiple times?
Same UNIT cannot cast the same power twice. So by same do they mean same instance or same name? Therefore by not the same do they mean not the same instance or not the same power?
FlingitNow wrote: Same UNIT cannot cast the same power twice. So by same do they mean same instance or same name? Therefore by not the same do they mean not the same instance or not the same power?
Then the question becomes where a Psyker is a unit or not, which he is. So this Psyker unit cannot cast the same power twice. But what is preventing another Psyker from casting the same power? The rulebook simply says select one Psyker, attempt to manifest power, resolve power. Select a new Psyker and repeat process until all of the Warp Charges have been used, or the same Psyker and attempt to manifest and resolve another, different power. This, to me reads that a Psyker can either use multiple spells but not the same one twice, or multiple Psykers can all use the same spell between them
PrinceRaven wrote: You've completely misread my argument, I have never claimed that multiple uses of Terrify are different powers, I claimed that through following the rules for manifesting psychic powers you can have 2 of them in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple leadership modifiers.
Yes, but they didn't have the same sort of access to education and information 8000 years ago as we do today, I like to think most English speaking wargamers have a firm enough grasp on the English language that their opinion on the interpretation of what "the effect" refers to should have some weight.
I understand what you're saying, I was pointing out that you can have 3 different sources of stealth, but you only get to use stealth once for your unit. following the rules as you read them with regard to stealth would lead to have 3 manifestations of stealth in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple stealth bonuses. Or 3 manifestations of a banner in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple WS bonuses.
contextually and RAW no matter how many of the same power, special rule, or wargear you have, they do not stack, unless told specifically that they do.
to see the failure of wargammers and english, look at the blast & multi level ruins threads. and how a circle & 'beneath' becomes an infinite cylinder. Most gamers seem to put more emphasis on the result they want, instead of the words used for the rules. This is why I point out these other 2 issues to show how they accept things don't stack because the math works out, yet for maledictions they'll change their mind and decide that they do.
You can't use stealth more than once because it specifically states that it doesn't stack in the "special abilities" and have their own rules. That's why Stealth doesn't stack.
Also, I'd like to point out that by your "logic" you cannot cast a Malediction more than once on a army. So even if it wasn't Terrify, you couldn't use Malediction powers from the Sanctic discipline more than once on a Daemonic Unit.
FlingitNow wrote: Same UNIT cannot cast the same power twice. So by same do they mean same instance or same name? Therefore by not the same do they mean not the same instance or not the same power?
Then the question becomes where a Psyker is a unit or not, which he is. So this Psyker unit cannot cast the same power twice. But what is preventing another Psyker from casting the same power? The rulebook simply says select one Psyker, attempt to manifest power, resolve power. Select a new Psyker and repeat process until all of the Warp Charges have been used, or the same Psyker and attempt to manifest and resolve another, different power. This, to me reads that a Psyker can either use multiple spells but not the same one twice, or multiple Psykers can all use the same spell between them
Have you even read the rules in question because they do not say this. However this is a needless digression no one is saying that it is impossible to cast the same power twice in the same phase (you must have 2 different units with the same power to do this).
What we are saying is that casting the same Malediction on a unit more than once has no cumulative effect. This being because it lacks permission to do so and the wording of Maledictions says "Whilst this power is in effect...X" means that statement is true whether you have cast the Malediction once, twice or a thousand times and therefore we apply clause X (in the case of Terrify -1Ld plus some special rules and a morale check).
Did not want to get dragged into this debate, but the wording that states "While this power is in effect" is an individual effect for that one instance of Terrify, for each stack of Terrify, assuming that it can indeed stack, each instance of Terrify would have "While this power is in effect"
That wording by no means says that it cannot stack. Just wanted to point this out.
Lobomalo wrote: Did not want to get dragged into this debate, but the wording that states "While this power is in effect" is an individual effect for that one instance of Terrify, for each stack of Terrify, assuming that it can indeed stack, each instance of Terrify would have "While this power is in effect"
That wording by no means says that it cannot stack. Just wanted to point this out.
All Maledictions carry this wording not just Terrify.
If I have cast Terrify on a unit 3 times, is Terrify in effect? If so then you get -1 Ld etc. If the answer is no then the unit suffers no ill effects so which is it?
If you cast Terrify 3 times from 3 different sources and they all succeed, then you get 3 instances of -1 to Leadership. I have found nothing within the rulebook that does not allow you to do this, but I will look again just to make sure.
Cool so if you have cast it 3 times on the unit when I come to do a morale check I need to check is Terrify in effect on the unit? Yes or No?
That is your issue as this is not a single instance event this is a status put on the unit that has to be checked when applicable through out the duration. That check will return a yes/no response which thus generates a single modifier.
FlingitNow wrote: Same UNIT cannot cast the same power twice. So by same do they mean same instance or same name? Therefore by not the same do they mean not the same instance or not the same power?
Then the question becomes where a Psyker is a unit or not, which he is. So this Psyker unit cannot cast the same power twice. But what is preventing another Psyker from casting the same power? The rulebook simply says select one Psyker, attempt to manifest power, resolve power. Select a new Psyker and repeat process until all of the Warp Charges have been used, or the same Psyker and attempt to manifest and resolve another, different power. This, to me reads that a Psyker can either use multiple spells but not the same one twice, or multiple Psykers can all use the same spell between them
Have you even read the rules in question because they do not say this. However this is a needless digression no one is saying that it is impossible to cast the same power twice in the same phase (you must have 2 different units with the same power to do this).
What we are saying is that casting the same Malediction on a unit more than once has no cumulative effect. This being because it lacks permission to do so and the wording of Maledictions says "Whilst this power is in effect...X" means that statement is true whether you have cast the Malediction once, twice or a thousand times and therefore we apply clause X (in the case of Terrify -1Ld plus some special rules and a morale check).
Just pointing this out
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
If you state the first, that you can in fact cast Terrify twice on a squad then they are cumulative. This isn't some weird Orwellian doublethought logic.
The argument people are having is this
Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).
Whether that means , different Maledictions or what definition do they mean by different. Regardless of what people think two things can be the same thing and be different.
It's not some illogical leap. If I have two identical pieces of paper they are different pieces of paper, they're still the same but they are also still different. The argument people have is that Blessings are specifically written in a very very specific way as to not stack ever which is why we're arguing about this.
If Maledictions had the same wording as Blessings, I wouldn't argue at all. It doesn't though.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool so if you have cast it 3 times on the unit when I come to do a morale check I need to check is Terrify in effect on the unit? Yes or No?
That is your issue as this is not a single instance event this is a status put on the unit that has to be checked when applicable through out the duration. That check will return a yes/no response which thus generates a single modifier.
I actually don't disagree with the Leadership check stuff because it's not a modifier, the -1 is a modifier, we know modifiers stack. However , a check is not a modifier it would not be cumulative.
So we know that Modifiers are cumulative, but checks are not. The one leadership check would satisfy the take 1 leadership check at the end of the phase as they all state that.
So if you had 3 Terrifies , you'd take a leadership check at -3 at the end of the phase and again at the end of the next psychic phase.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool so if you have cast it 3 times on the unit when I come to do a morale check I need to check is Terrify in effect on the unit? Yes or No?
That is your issue as this is not a single instance event this is a status put on the unit that has to be checked when applicable through out the duration. That check will return a yes/no response which thus generates a single modifier.
The way I read it. Multiple instances will stack, you would only need to do a Morale check once. It isn't the clearest rule in the book, but it isn't as difficult to interpret as this thread has made it to be.
“The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).”
They explained it well here for blessings. However one blurb is left off on the maledictions. See here.
“Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership”
See how the final parts are exactly alike I'd say that both maledictions and blessings must be different to stack.
Lungpickle wrote: “The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).”
They explained it well here for blessings. However one blurb is left off on the maledictions. See here.
“Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership”
See how the final parts are exactly alike I'd say that both maledictions and blessings must be different to stack.
Where is this? If it does state the effects are cumulative, then they do indeed stack, whether it is the same or not, cumulative is cumulative.
With Blessings, they explained it perfectly as buff stacking would be incredibly strong, but debuffs stacking is normal and expected.
A leadership check is not a bonus or a penalty, it wouldn't stack because taking one test would satisfy all 3 instances, but they would have a -3 to that one check.
That's the only conclusion I can come to because it specifically states you only have to take 1 test, if at the end of the phase you take 1 test it satisfies the requirement for each of the Terrifies, that and it states that only bonuses and penalties are cumulative.
Hollismason wrote: A leadership check is not a bonus or a penalty, it wouldn't stack because taking one test would satisfy all 3 instances, but they would have a -3 to that one check.
That's the only conclusion I can come to because it specifically states you only have to take 1 test, if at the end of the phase you take 1 test it satisfies the requirement for each of the Terrifies, that and it states that only bonuses and penalties are cumulative.
I can see this. Having to take multiples wouldn't make sense at all, I will edit that.
Whether that means , different Maledictions or what definition do they mean by different. Regardless of what people think two things can be the same thing and be different.
It's not some illogical leap. If I have two identical pieces of paper they are different pieces of paper, they're still the same but they are also still different. The argument people have is that Blessings are specifically written in a very very specific way as to not stack ever which is why we're arguing about this.
If Maledictions had the same wording as Blessings, I wouldn't argue at all. It doesn't though.
We know what different means because we know what the same means. So we know that different means differently named. This is not even in dispute by those on the pro-stacking side. They simply claim that the wording is redundant.
Whether that means , different Maledictions or what definition do they mean by different. Regardless of what people think two things can be the same thing and be different.
It's not some illogical leap. If I have two identical pieces of paper they are different pieces of paper, they're still the same but they are also still different. The argument people have is that Blessings are specifically written in a very very specific way as to not stack ever which is why we're arguing about this.
If Maledictions had the same wording as Blessings, I wouldn't argue at all. It doesn't though.
We know what different means because we know what the same means. So we know that different means differently named. This is not even in dispute by those on the pro-stacking side. They simply claim that the wording is redundant.
You just jumped from different to different named. When different has a multiple use. Same meaning.
Different Psyker Casting
Different power being used
Different target of the spell
You see the differences?
So we know that different means differently named.
This simply doesn't compute from an English perspective as a word cannot have its word in its meaning.
What we know is different. Whether this is a different named power or different Psyker using the same power, we do not know for sure when you look at your line of text.
Except the rulebook states that the same Psyker cannot cast the same power, which means another Psyker would need to cast it. But we lack anything that is preventing us from having different applications of the Terrify power on one target.
With Blessings, they explained it perfectly as buff stacking would be incredibly strong, but debuffs stacking is normal and expected.
Genius sorry but why is buffing so inherently stronger than debuffs? Basically all the best buffs to stack inherently don't because they only effect the Psyker or give a special rule. So why would say Hammerhand stacking be so much more powerful than Enfeeble or Horrify (couple of horrifies backed up by a Psychic Shriek for example). Please enlighten me. Debuffs are more useful than buffs for stacking in this edition where you do damage from range, stacking debuffs to toughness and leadership for example will have a much greater effect than stacking strength bonuses which have no effect on firepower...
It actually does get worse when you consider how many stackable psychic powers Eldar get. I was just using Terrify as a an example. There are much worse things.
I don't think we're pretty much a stalemate, I think at least we know that tests dealing with Psychic powers do not repeat, that's about it.
Hollismason wrote: It actually does get worse when you consider how many stackable psychic powers Eldar get. I was just using Terrify as a an example. There are much worse things.
I don't think we're pretty much a stalemate, I think at least we know that tests dealing with Psychic powers do not repeat, that's about it.
Hollismason wrote: You can't use stealth more than once because it specifically states that it doesn't stack in the "special abilities" and have their own rules. That's why Stealth doesn't stack.
Also, I'd like to point out that by your "logic" you cannot cast a Malediction more than once on a army. So even if it wasn't Terrify, you couldn't use Malediction powers from the Sanctic discipline more than once on a Daemonic Unit.
Now surely Mr wall of text devoted to 'different' , where you take the same power and treat it as different.
How is stealth not different from stealth ruins? How is stealth ruins not a different source than a unit having stealth?
also under special rules "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"
Maybe you should pick to one definition for 'different' that you can use for the entire rule book. Because clearly and in context with all the rules, it's all in the name.
And please show how my logic leads to one malediction per army? that's just absurd.
If you were to think honestly on your logic you would see how you are arguing for ork banners to stack, which you say they don't. you're arguing for stealth to stack, which you say they don't. And you're arguing for maledictions to stack, which you accept. There is only one answer to all 3 in context with the rules, and RAW. I have one answer and it's 'no' to all.
This simply doesn't compute from an English perspective as a word cannot have its word in its meaning.
Is English not your first language? Because that might explain why you are so far out with simple concepts (like who can and can't cast the same power). We know what they mean by the same power. So we know what they mean by different power. This is how rules work they explain how things are treated. We know the phrase "same power" is a power that has the same name. Therefore we know that different power is a power that does not have the same name.
Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?
This simply doesn't compute from an English perspective as a word cannot have its word in its meaning.
Is English not your first language? Because that might explain why you are so far out with simple concepts (like who can and can't cast the same power). We know what they mean by the same power. So we know what they mean by different power. This is how rules work they explain how things are treated. We know the phrase "same power" is a power that has the same name. Therefore we know that different power is a power that does not have the same name.
It really is that simple.
No need to be rude. I understand what it says very well thank you.
You cannot use the same power with the same Psyker. This it directly states. Therefore, if you want to cast the same power, you must use a different Psyker. It does not say that different Psykers cannot cast the same power, nor does it say that these same powers, used by different Psykers cannot target the same thing.
Hollismason wrote: You can't use stealth more than once because it specifically states that it doesn't stack in the "special abilities" and have their own rules. That's why Stealth doesn't stack.
Also, I'd like to point out that by your "logic" you cannot cast a Malediction more than once on a army. So even if it wasn't Terrify, you couldn't use Malediction powers from the Sanctic discipline more than once on a Daemonic Unit.
Now surely Mr wall of text devoted to 'different' , where you take the same power and treat it as different.
How is stealth not different from stealth ruins? How is stealth ruins not a different source than a unit having stealth?
also under special rules "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"
Maybe you should pick to one definition for 'different' that you can use for the entire rule book. Because clearly and in context with all the rules, it's all in the name.
And please show how my logic leads to one malediction per army? that's just absurd.
If you were to think honestly on your logic you would see how you are arguing for ork banners to stack, which you say they don't. you're arguing for stealth to stack, which you say they don't. And you're arguing for maledictions to stack, which you accept. There is only one answer to all 3 in context with the rules, and RAW. I have one answer and it's 'no' to all.
Actually it's pretty clear on special abilities:
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.
I have no idea what you are actually referring to as Ruins Stealth, do you mean models that gain the Stealth Special rule when they are in ruins. Cause there is no special rule called Ruins Stealth.
Spoiler:
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being 1 point better than normal. Note that this means that a model with the Stealth special rule always has a cover save of at least 6+, even if it is in the open. This rule is often presented as Stealth (X) where X indicates a specific type of terrain, such as Stealth (Woods) or Stealth (Ruins). If this is the case, the unit only gains the benefit whilst it is in terrain of the specified type.
Cover save bonuses from the Shrouded and Stealth special rules are cumulative (to a maximum of a 2+ cover save)
Happyjew wrote: Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?
Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.
Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".
So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You cannot use the same power with the same Psyker. This it directly states. Therefore, if you want to cast the same power, you must use a different Psyker.
Seriously again? I've already pointed out this is not true. Please read the actual rules in question if you're going to argue them. If you cannot understand such simple phrases that illustrate that this is not correct then please refrain from arguing rules that you don't understand.
Happyjew wrote: Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?
Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.
Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".
So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?
This makes no sense. Like literally it doesn't make sense, it's just words that are in sentences that have punctuation.
Same and Different in context of Psychic Powers and usrs refers to same/different name <- uh what?
Just check the wording for Blessings with has further clarifying texts.
Like seriously are you just purposefully trying to be cryptic?
Happyjew wrote: Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?
Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.
Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".
So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You cannot use the same power with the same Psyker. This it directly states. Therefore, if you want to cast the same power, you must use a different Psyker.
Seriously again? I've already pointed out this is not true. Please read the actual rules in question if you're going to argue them. If you cannot understand such simple phrases that illustrate that this is not correct then please refrain from arguing rules that you don't understand.
The wording in the text is in the Blessing section because it refers to Blessings, not to Maledictions, otherwise it would be there as well. What you have done is applied the wording under one specific heading to a completely different one and assumed that this is what was intended by the writers, without knowing whether this is the case or not.
The bolded line under Manifesting Psychic Powers, the one at the end of the paragraph states, "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase."
This is specifically stating A unit, not all units, not all units in the army, but a single unit. Therefore, a separate, Different unit can use the same power.
The wording in the text is in the Blessing section because it refers to Blessings, not to Maledictions, otherwise it would be there as well. What you have done is applied the wording under one specific heading to a completely different one and assumed that this is what was intended by the writers, without knowing whether this is the case or not.
That is not what I'm doing. I'm seeing the exact identical use of phrases repeated through out the rules and assuming consistent use. That the rules define how language is used (that model is not a reference to a physical model but to the rules defined term model for example). Its called understanding the context of the rules.
The bolded line under Manifesting Psychic Powers, the one at the end of the paragraph states, "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase."
This is specifically stating A unit, not all units, not all units in the army, but a single unit. Therefore, a separate, Different unit can use the same power.
Finally you get it right. Why did you keep insisting it was by Psyker rather than by unit even after I had pointed out to you it is by unit not by Psyker?
American English or British English. They are similar but vastly different things.
Does your book demand fealty and loyal subjugation and try to recapture the Falklands? - British English
Does your book come with a 32 oz. Soft Drink? American English
Hollismason wrote: Does your book demand fealty and loyal subjugation and try to recapture the Falklands? - British English.
Crap! Is that what my book is doing? Between demands for tea and crumpets and complaints about how ghastly its wife is, I've no idea what my book has been trying to say.
Happyjew wrote: Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?
Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.
Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".
So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?
If my assumption is incorrect I apologize. I was going off (somewhere probably this thread) what someone said about the same unit not casting the same power multiple times.
The one thing I never understood with this argument of "different", from some, in terms of maledictions in 6th, and apparently now again in 7th, is if that the word is only being used to indicate a different source of the malediction. In 6th, and again in 7th, no psyker can use, or even attempt to use, the same power twice in a turn, then there is no need to define the power as being "different" in this manner, since it is impossible for there to be a "same". I understand that there may have been a possibility that Eldrad in the 5th ed codex might have been able to do this, although I have seen that disputed in these forums. But, even if Eldrad could so such a thing, its very unlikely that GW would have written such a caveat into the stacking of maledictions due to the special ability of one character.
If they wanted maledictions from different sources, with the same name, to stack, they simply had to leave out the word "different" in that sentence in the BRB. Since they didn't, and there was only 1 character in the entire system that might have been able to try to cast the same power twice, its pretty strong indication that the word different means a power with a different name.
Personal soapbox. Arguing RAW without trying to understand intent is harmful to the gameplay and just results, not in competitive play, but in cutthroat competition that is harmful to the hobby and is even more likely to drive off new players then the expense of the game. But GW does have a lot to answer for sloppy rules writing and extremely poorly balanced codices.
Rumbleguts wrote: . Arguing RAW without trying to understand intent is harmful to the gameplay and just results, not in competitive play, but in cutthroat competition that is harmful to the hobby and is even more likely to drive off new players then the expense of the game. But GW does have a lot to answer for sloppy rules writing and extremely poorly balanced codices.
Clear RAW results in people not having to resort to trying to divine intent...
Finally you get it right. Why did you keep insisting it was by Psyker rather than by unit even after I had pointed out to you it is by unit not by Psyker?
Because a Psyker is a unit isn't it? Or did I miss something in my reading of the rules? What I mean is, it counts as a unit on the board. As I understand it, a unit can be made up of one model, that is an Independent Character or a group of models to form a unit. I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall this.
You're correct a Psyker or Independent Character is in fact a unit. Now there are a huge number of problems with Pskyers being in the same unit but that isn't this argument.
I dunno, I'm kind of coming around to the not stacking for balance maybe. That's the only real argument against it that and the specified grammatical arguments.
We've had nine pages of really decent argument, I just don't think anyoen one side or the other could argue whether or not what different means because they didn't use the same wording as blessing so it's one of those , wait for the fact.
Different can mean what I've stated.
Different can mean what others have stated, I can't debate their interpretation of Different because it is a legitimate argument.
On one hand we have the difference in word usage from Blessings to Maledictions, which is unusual.
On the other hand we have some game play impacts that could possibly be overpowered.
I've argued my points and others have as well. I just don't think this is going anywhere it's basically HYWPI at this point without a clear FAQ for it.
PrinceRaven wrote: You've completely misread my argument, I have never claimed that multiple uses of Terrify are different powers, I claimed that through following the rules for manifesting psychic powers you can have 2 of them in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple leadership modifiers.
Yes, but they didn't have the same sort of access to education and information 8000 years ago as we do today, I like to think most English speaking wargamers have a firm enough grasp on the English language that their opinion on the interpretation of what "the effect" refers to should have some weight.
I understand what you're saying, I was pointing out that you can have 3 different sources of stealth, but you only get to use stealth once for your unit. following the rules as you read them with regard to stealth would lead to have 3 manifestations of stealth in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple stealth bonuses. Or 3 manifestations of a banner in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple WS bonuses.
contextually and RAW no matter how many of the same power, special rule, or wargear you have, they do not stack, unless told specifically that they do..
Wargear have a variety of rules preventing you from applying the same wargear cumulatively (WAAAgh banners have their non-cumulative wording, you can not attack with two Power Fists simultaneously, it is impossible to have 2 of the same Mark of Chaos on the same model, etc.)
Special Rules have a rule that explicitly states a model can only gain the benefit of the same special rule once
Blessings state that the benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn.
No such rule exists for maledictions, which is where your argument falls short.
Finally you get it right. Why did you keep insisting it was by Psyker rather than by unit even after I had pointed out to you it is by unit not by Psyker?
Because a Psyker is a unit isn't it? Or did I miss something in my reading of the rules? What I mean is, it counts as a unit on the board. As I understand it, a unit can be made up of one model, that is an Independent Character or a group of models to form a unit. I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall this.
You can have multiple Psykers in the same unit with potentially the same power if one of them attempts to manifest a power then another can't go for the same power (e.g. a unit of Warlocks all have Conceal/Reveal).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
We've had nine pages of really decent argument, I just don't think anyoen one side or the other could argue whether or not what different means because they didn't use the same wording as blessing so it's one of those , wait for the fact.
Different can mean what I've stated.
Different can mean what others have stated, I can't debate their interpretation of Different because it is a legitimate argument.
On one hand we have the difference in word usage from Blessings to Maledictions, which is unusual.
On the other hand we have some game play impacts that could possibly be overpowered.
I've argued my points and others have as well. I just don't think this is going anywhere it's basically HYWPI at this point without a clearFAQ for it.
1) Different can only mean what you said it does if you completely ignore the context in which the rules are written (notice how neither Nos nor PR are arguing for your definition of different). Also by your definition the word is entirely redundant and its presence only serves to make the rule less clear.
2) So the debate on the meaning of different isn't really a debate I have cited why my interpretation must be correct and your argumemt is that different could mean something else to every single time they have used the word in a similar context in the entire book because...
3) Yeah GW write rules sloppily and are often guilty of copy paste fail. For example the BA vehicle FaQ at the start of 7th. Notice however what they say does stack is identical wording meaning that it means the same thing. They don't clarify what doesn't stack though. Which either means all the stacking rules are redundant and the Malediction one is intentionally misleading or the same Malediction does not have permission to stack with itself.
4) Balance is not really the issue the intent of the rule is crystal clear. The RaW of thr rule is evidently less clear though also supports the actual rule in this case. So you can houserule that they stack and even claim that houserule is RaW if you want. Or you can play by the actual rules which are also the RaW that they don't stack. The choice is yours.
And that's just first 4 threads the search popped up. Trust me when I say there were plenty more, longer threads before that. This has gone on throughout 6th.
The difference 6th - 7th - Blessing have a extra line, Maledictions do not. Other than that it's essentially works the same debate wise.
4) The Rules as they are written in the text, mentions nothing about Maledictions stacking. Only Blessings, so the rules as they are written would actually support players doing this, therefore it would not be a house rule.
