Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

read page 2 again, your first sentence it wrong.

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

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

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

right nos?

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: pg 91 is more specific than pg 19.


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

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

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

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

By definition +2 is positive and not negative.

A negative would be -2...

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

By definition +2 is positive and not negative.

A negative would be -2...

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

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

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

Basic Math.

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

Basic Math.

and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

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

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

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

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

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

Basic Math.

and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

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

sirlynchmob wrote:


and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

Except that you're ignoring page 2:

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

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

Iranna.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

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

Basic Math.

and from that we get

5+2=7
5-2=3

Basic math.

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

I'm ignoring nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glad were finally on the same page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glad were finally on the same page.

1) That math is only for Saving throw values.

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Glad were finally on the same page.

1) That math is only for Saving throw values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Ailaros wrote:

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

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

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

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

PLesee find such proof. Page and para.

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

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

PLesee find such proof. Page and para.

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



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

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

PLesee find such proof. Page and para.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

See different psychers same power.

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

Permissive rule set is correct.

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

 DeathReaper wrote:
Permissive rule set is correct.

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

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

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

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

Stop ignoring the rules.