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.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
incorrect , that is not what resolution means .

That's not what it means?

Correct that not what it means
Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect

rigeld2 wrote:
When I quoted the rule that says exactly that - it actually means something different? You're told to follow the instructions in its entry. Correct?

you mean the rule i quoted 5 times with the definition of resolve in resolve's place ? yes follow the powers instructions and resolve it. again Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
it does not say apply the effect as written , it says " Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry. "

rigeld2 wrote:
Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?

permissive rule set . your logic is backwards. It's do i have permission to make same power modifies stack able
unless you can quote a blanket statement that says all powers are cumulative

The text of enfeeble doesn't permit cumulative effects. The text of maladictions strongly indicates that only different named powers may stack.

What do you have again? Permission to target and cast (includinh resolution)?

Yeah no, I'm sticking with the rule interpretation that doesn't assume games workshop writes completly redundant rules but sometimes leave things out due to oversite.

kambien wrote:
you mean the rule i quoted 5 times with the definition of resolve in resolve's place ? yes follow the powers instructions and resolve it. again Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
it does not say apply the effect as written , it says " Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry. "

... and what's in the entry? Does it say to maybe, if you feel like it, apply the modifier? My copy of the BRB doesn't say that - does yours?

rigeld2 wrote:
Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?

permissive rule set . your logic is backwards. It's do i have permission to make same power modifies stack able
unless you can quote a blanket statement that says all powers are cumulative

Actually, it's not backwards as has been demonstrated.
Assuming that the test was passed and not denied I have permission to resolve according to the instructions for the power. So I'm required to do so.
I'm attempting to follow those instructions. You're attempting to deny me. You have refused (or failed) to cite a denial.

Kambien, the basic psychic rules assume all powers are, unless its specified that they are not. The specific rules for blessings/maladictions states unless specified that different powers are cumulative. The individual powers rulea may or may not have a specific express permission to be cumulative in its entry.

I agree its not clear cut denial but the intent is present .

 Bausk wrote:
Yeah no, I'm sticking with the rule interpretation that doesn't assume games workshop writes completly redundant rules but sometimes leave things out due to oversite.

actually telling you to resolve the power is a redundant rule , unless you stop the game you will in some way resolve the power ( obviously your aim is to be correct )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:
Kambien, the basic psychic rules assume all powers are, unless its specified that they are not. The specific rules for blessings/maladictions states unless specified that different powers are cumulative. The individual powers rulea may or may not have a specific express permission to be cumulative in its entry..

what pg can i find that under ?

Resolution is not limited to application. And the allegedly redundant rules, according to the prostack side, are "reminders" that different blessings/maladictions stack and specific express permission to be cumulative if some but not all blessings/maladictions. Alleging these are "reminders" is the ridiculous redundancy I'm talking of.

By Rigeld's logic you cannot cast powers that modify certain characteristics on vehicles, as then you cannot apply the effects as vehicles lack those characteristics. And applying the effects is, according to him, required for resolving the power.

The psychic power section...the section this discussion is about....really...

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
you mean the rule i quoted 5 times with the definition of resolve in resolve's place ? yes follow the powers instructions and resolve it. again Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
it does not say apply the effect as written , it says " Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry. "

... and what's in the entry? Does it say to maybe, if you feel like it, apply the modifier? My copy of the BRB doesn't say that - does yours?

mine says "Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
so according to my book and it's text , i have to do the text in the power , then resolve to determine the outcome of the power.

rigeld2 wrote:
Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?

permissive rule set . your logic is backwards. It's do i have permission to make same power modifies stack able
unless you can quote a blanket statement that says all powers are cumulative

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, it's not backwards as has been demonstrated.

you demonstrated that you misuse the term resolve to give you permission to stack powers , which was pointed out as wrong several times

rigeld2 wrote:
Assuming that the test was passed and not denied I have permission to resolve according to the instructions for the power. So I'm required to do so.
I'm attempting to follow those instructions. You're attempting to deny me. You have refused (or failed) to cite a denial.

there is no denial , your just using resolve incorrectly . You keep using it as a permission to do things . Resolve gives no permissions to do anything . Actualy you need to take everything that has been done and come to a conclusion

I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?

If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.

If it is illogical to remind us that the effects of different powers are cumulative if sometimes multiple instances of the same power can also be cumulative, isn't it also illogical to remind us that special rules are not cumulative if we should be assuming that anyway due to lack of specific permission?

Can the pro-stacking side honestly say that "the power" in the wording of Enfeeble and similar powers clearly refers to that instance of the power rather than the power in itself and that there's no ambiguity at all?

Resolve being interpreted as stacking is not wrong, it's an assumption with merit as there is a lack of specific denial. Though a power can be resolved in many ways that are not stacking. However as it say resolve the power as per its entry we move on to the next section, sub-groups of powers and look at those rules where we find more lack of specific denial but eluded to denial in the form of Different powers may stack (which one interpretation is that its a redundant reminder). We then read the power entry itself which may or may not have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself which leans more on the non stacking interpretation (though the opposition would have us believe this is another redundant reminder).

Jeffersonian -so, no page ref proving that +1S is a special rule?

Then your argument remains debunked.

You are told to resolve according to the entry. The entry states +1S. This is a modiifer. Multiple modiifers operate according to the rules on page 2.

Damn, back here again. Its almost like they ALREADY gave us rules for accumulating as per the rules of maths.

 Bausk wrote:

Yeah no, I'm sticking with the rule interpretation that doesn't assume games workshop writes completly redundant rules but sometimes leave things out due to oversite.

GW does write redundant rules, here are some examples just from the Psychic powers -section:

Enfeeble:
Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalry to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as dfficult terrain.


Foreboding:
...and fire Overwatch on their full ballistic Skill, rather than Ballistic Skill 1. Note that this does not allow weapons that could not normally fire Overwatch to do so.


Puppet Master:
The target immediately makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models (this cannot target his own unit).


I bolded the redundant parts.

there are plenty more redundant rules in BRB and in codices.

Those are less evident than the assumption that differ powers is a redundant reminder.

You resolve the power, as per the rules in its entry.

Application 1.
Whilst the power is in effect the target unit suffers...
-1T, -1S.
Treats all terrain as difficult

Application 2.
Whilst the power is in effect..
-Pro Stacking side: Different sourced Enfeebles stack the effect, the target unit should suffer Enfeeble effect twice. (Enfeeble x2 on target unit)

-Anti Stacking side: The target unit has suffered -1T and -1S while under the effect of Enfeeble, the rules are satisfied, with no further action required. (Enfeeble on target unit)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Personal thoughts?

Either they forgot to point out the same powers do stack, or the lack of that sentance is deliberate.

Finding permissions in the back end working is always a bit dodgy rules wise, they tend to get slapped down with a FAQ eventually.
Everything else is made clear on what is and what rules are and are not cumulative, due to other sections throughout the rule book they should have realised if they do stack they should probably mention it, but thats giving a lot of credit. Maybe we'll never know.

This isnt the back end wording, however. ITs page 2.

You have multiple modifiers, so you apply them using the permission granted in page 2.

It is incredibly simple. The attempts at finding a denial are FAR more tricksy

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jeffersonian -so, no page ref proving that +1S is a special rule?

Then your argument remains debunked.

You are told to resolve according to the entry. The entry states +1S. This is a modiifer. Multiple modiifers operate according to the rules on page 2.

Damn, back here again. Its almost like they ALREADY gave us rules for accumulating as per the rules of maths.

I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This isnt the back end wording, however. ITs page 2.

You have multiple modifiers, so you apply them using the permission granted in page 2.

It is incredibly simple. The attempts at finding a denial are FAR more tricksy

pg2 only applies when stacking is permitted which is the crux of the entire issue


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?

If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.

I'm not sure by what you mean with the hive tyrant example . Lascannons are heavy 1 so you don't even get a chance to cause more wounds unless there is something else in play . Actually lascannos don't cause wounds anyways they modify the to wound roll from hits

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).

Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.

You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.

kambien wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?

If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.

I'm not sure by what you mean with the hive tyrant example . Lascannons are heavy 1 so you don't even get a chance to cause more wounds unless there is something else in play . Actually lascannos don't cause wounds anyways they modify the to wound roll from hits

I'm saying that if a Grey Knights unit can't have multiple +1 Str modifiers from Hammerhand without specific permission then a Hive Tyrant can't have multiple -1 wound modifiers from lascannons without specific permission. This example is intended to show that the requirement for specific permission to apply things cumulatively has been invented by the anti-stacking side and does not actually exist in the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).

Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.

You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.

I can't help it that your ability to read is the same as Nos', Rigeld. Its in plan text, on pg. 32, what effects fall under Special Rules, what parts of the game are sources of Special Rules, and that Special Rules are not limited to the list of Universal Special Rules. A +1 S is listed as a example of a special rule, as is psychic powers listed as a source of special rules. The Pysker USR tells us where to find the rules for using the Psyker USR.

Just because you deny it, does not make the above facts false. And unlike your side of the argument, the above is written, not implied.

SJ

I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.

"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.

What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).

Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.

You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.

I can't help it that your ability to read is the same as Nos', Rigeld. Its in plan text, on pg. 32, what effects fall under Special Rules, what parts of the game are sources of Special Rules, and that Special Rules are not limited to the list of Universal Special Rules. A +1 S is listed as a example of a special rule, as is psychic powers listed as a source of special rules. The Pysker USR tells us where to find the rules for using the Psyker USR.

Just because you deny it, does not make the above facts false. And unlike your side of the argument, the above is written, not implied.

The bolded is absolutely false and renders your entire argument useless.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).

Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.

You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.

I can't help it that your ability to read is the same as Nos', Rigeld. Its in plan text, on pg. 32, what effects fall under Special Rules, what parts of the game are sources of Special Rules, and that Special Rules are not limited to the list of Universal Special Rules. A +1 S is listed as a example of a special rule, as is psychic powers listed as a source of special rules. The Pysker USR tells us where to find the rules for using the Psyker USR.

Just because you deny it, does not make the above facts false. And unlike your side of the argument, the above is written, not implied.

SJ

Ah, so you are still using logical fallacies as the basis of your argument? You do realise that that does tend to make your argument more than a little shaky?

Nowhere on page 32 does it state that +1 s is a special rule. It says a special rule CAN be increasing a models strength, however as you well know, you cannot simply reverse that and claim the reverse is always true.

You just made the "all poodles are dogs, therefore all dogs are poodles" argument. Again

Please, for all sanity, concede your error on this.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.

"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.

What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.

Incorrect. I have always stated that the abilities a psychic power might grant are to be treated as special rules if those abilities bend or break the basic rules of the game. There are several psychic powers, such as Smite, that grant no additional abilities, and therefore do not fall under Special Rules. Hammerhand, on the other hand, both boosts Strength and applies that boost before multipliers. The boost is mentioned on pg 32, the fact that Hammerhand is psychic power and the source of the boost is covered on pg. 32, and then out of order of application of the boost truly does break or bend the rules on pg. 2.

Let's look at Enfeeble: Enfeeble is a Malediction that inflicts a -1 T on a target as well as making all terrain, invluding clear terrain, count as an additional terrain type. Maledictions are psychic powers, and the modification to Toughness as well as the additional terrain effect do bend or break the basic rules of the game. As such, Enfeeble contains special rules, and should follow the restrictions listed on pg. 32 regardless of the "different Maledictions are cumulative" rule on pg. 68.

Let's look at Psychic Shriek: Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire that inflicts wounds on a target using a wounding mechanic based on the target's Leadership value. Psychic power that bends or breaks the rules.

Smite: A Witchfire the acts like a weapon with a weapon profile. No special rules included.

So, what does Special Rules mean for psychic powers? It means that multiple casting of the power on the same target requires specific permission to stack not only with itself but with other similar affects. General permission is granted on pg. 68 for different powers to stack, while specific permission is required for same powers to stack per the "unless otherwise noted" clause.

Every point I've listed above has been cited, quoted, and paraphrased in the 2 previous threads. The only counter argument put for has been denial and the often stated "pg. 2", "permission to resolve", and "it doesn't say I can't".

SJ

Not sure where we are going with the wounds thing. The rules tell you for every roll which hits you roll to wound, you total up how many wounds caused, and then you allocate them. It's pretty on depth about what you can (and by extension can't) do with them. The weapon can cumulate more than one wound because the rules which govern it says it can.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.

"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.

What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.

This is more likely.

"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."

SJ - again with the lying, stop.

No one has used the "it doesn't say I can't" argument. What we HAVE, correctly, used is the "I am told to resolve the non special rule, I know how to do so according to the rules on page 2, and you cannot cite a single, non made up or logically fallacious argument why I should be prevented from doing so"

Given you cannot prove your claims, as they are based on a logical fallacy (making them AT BEST an implication) your concession is accepted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.

"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.

What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.

This is more likely.

"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."

Which relies on either claiming that all psychic powers bestow special rules (false) OR that simply using a special rule means everything that results is also one. The actual rules, as written, disagree wih this. However this was brought up in prior threads, and Jeffersonian simply hand waved them away. Along with the rules that actually show you how to identify a special rule, that Jeffersonian keeps ignoring and pretend don't exist.

Nos - enough with the personal attacks, you have been reported.

As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".

And again, you can deny my statements all you want, your denial does not make my statements untrue. Your inability to refute my statements per the forum tenets is noted.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".

No it does not "equate to "it doesn't say I can't"." That is not true and It is a fallacious argument.

What "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative" means is that we have permission to cast 2 powers on a single unit and nothing that restricts this.