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.

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

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

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


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

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

permissive rule set says you need permission to stack.

Rules say only different powers stack

enfeeble = enfeeble, not different, no stacking.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

See different psychers same power.

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

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

 Crimson wrote:


All these are legal:

Psyker 1 casting A and B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting A


This is not:
Psyker 1 casting A and A

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

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

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

SJ

 beigeknight wrote:

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 beigeknight wrote:


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

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:


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

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

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

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

 beigeknight wrote:

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

 beigeknight wrote:

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

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

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

 beigeknight wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

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

SJ

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

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

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

SJ

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

Here, I'll quote it for you:

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

But your BRB probably does not contain such verbiage.

SJ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

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

SJ

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

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

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

 Mahtamori wrote:

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:


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

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

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

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. Whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well yes, that is what we have said.

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

Ooooh, SO close

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

You entire argument is based on this logical fallacy.

All of it

The whole shebang

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

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

So it remains in operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

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

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

SJ

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

Here, I'll quote it for you:

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

But your BRB probably does not contain such verbiage.

SJ

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

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

@nos

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

You're projecting your own failings again.

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

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

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

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

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

Uhm whats the problem?

We have about one relevant paragraph here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So at the given moment, your stat is X.

Malediction makes it X-1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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