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.

Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause

Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause

Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.

Still waiting for you to actually prove anything, Nos.

SJ

So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?

No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?

No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.

PrinceRaven is correct, DeathReaper is off base. Both sides have a legitimate argument, due to the ambiguous wording used on pg. 68, "different powers are cumulative". What constitutes "different powers"? The "permission to resolve" side believes all powers are cumulative, making the thrice repeated "different powers are cumulative" statement meaningless. The "different =/= same" side believes "different powers" means "differently named powers" not "same power from different caster".

The issue is irreconcilable because both sides are technically correct, netting two opposite results: Stacking vs Non-Stacking. Since both sides cannot be right in this debate, one has to be more right than the other. Currently, the Stacker side believes they are more right because they deny the core argument of the Non-Stackers. The Non-Stackers believe they are more right because of the logic chain printed in the BRB points to a "non-cumulative without permission" theme that appears to carry over to psychic powers due to the "unless otherwise noted" clause to the "different powers are cumulative" rule. Non-Stackers do not deny the "permission to resolve" argument, they simply believe "permission to resolve" does not take into account an additional set of rules. The Stackers believe that additional set if rules do not apply.

Irreconcilable argument, requiring an FAQ or Errata to resolve.

SJ

I feel like I've entered a time warp into the past... how intriguing.

HIWPI is that they do stack, that's how we've House-ruled it round here to save any debate. Although, the majority of players are in agreement with Nos, DReaper, rigeld2 and the like.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:
I feel like I've entered a time warp into the past... how intriguing.

HIWPI is that they do stack, that's how we've House-ruled it round here to save any debate. Although, the majority of players are in agreement with Nos, DReaper, rigeld2 and the like.

Iranna.

I disagree with the statement of most players. First poll result I found on Google, for Dakka, for maledictions showed over 250 participants with 51% in favour of not stacking - this is about as split as it can be. There have been many different ones but none show a clear majority either way. It's worth asking the question whenever you play outside your meta. I asked 2 friends today, one was a instant yes one was a instant no. Both knew they were right.


At the end of the day it tells us 3 times on one page the effects of different pp's are cumulative, in the rules for resolving the power, and under the rules for both maledictions and blessings. Not one mentions the same stack, and they could have just ommitted the word different from any of them if it was the case the same should be cumulative.

 Nem wrote:


I disagree with the statement of most players. First poll result I found on Google, for Dakka, for maledictions showed over 250 participants with 51% in favour of not stacking - this is about as split as it can be. There have been many different ones but none show a clear majority either way. It's worth asking the question whenever you play outside your meta. I asked 2 friends today, one was a instant yes one was a instant no. Both knew they were right.

I think you misread my post, I meant the majority of players in my area.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 Nem wrote:


I disagree with the statement of most players. First poll result I found on Google, for Dakka, for maledictions showed over 250 participants with 51% in favour of not stacking - this is about as split as it can be. There have been many different ones but none show a clear majority either way. It's worth asking the question whenever you play outside your meta. I asked 2 friends today, one was a instant yes one was a instant no. Both knew they were right.

I think you misread my post, I meant the majority of players in my area.

Iranna.

Ah right apologies, were pretty much 50 / 50, but we play its cumulative

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?

No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.

PrinceRaven is correct, DeathReaper is off base. Both sides have a legitimate argument, due to the ambiguous wording used on pg. 68, "different powers are cumulative". What constitutes "different powers"? The "permission to resolve" side believes all powers are cumulative, making the thrice repeated "different powers are cumulative" statement meaningless. The "different =/= same" side believes "different powers" means "differently named powers" not "same power from different caster".

The "different powers are cumulative" statement is not meaningless it is a reminder...

The issue is irreconcilable because both sides are technically correct

No they aren't, the does not stack side has not produced any rules that restrict the second casting from resolving. (They say it is not needed as they must tell you they can stack for them to stack but then do not produce any rules backing this position when the other side shows RAW proof of stacking).

They are simply handwaving the fact that nothing restricts psychic powers from resolving. They are also trying to impose a restriction that is not in the rules.

"different powers are cumulative" does not mean same powers are not cumulative. It is a fallacy on the non stacking side of the argument.

Indeed, one side has rules that agree with them, the other side is inferring a restriction, and is therefore currently in error as far as RAW goes.

I'm going the simpler route, which is you are told 4-1-1=2

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?

No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.

PrinceRaven is correct, DeathReaper is off base. Both sides have a legitimate argument, due to the ambiguous wording used on pg. 68, "different powers are cumulative". What constitutes "different powers"? The "permission to resolve" side believes all powers are cumulative, making the thrice repeated "different powers are cumulative" statement meaningless. The "different =/= same" side believes "different powers" means "differently named powers" not "same power from different caster".

The "different powers are cumulative" statement is not meaningless it is a reminder...

The issue is irreconcilable because both sides are technically correct

No they aren't, the does not stack side has not produced any rules that restrict the second casting from resolving. (They say it is not needed as they must tell you they can stack for them to stack but then do not produce any rules backing this position when the other side shows RAW proof of stacking).

They are simply handwaving the fact that nothing restricts psychic powers from resolving. They are also trying to impose a restriction that is not in the rules.

"different powers are cumulative" does not mean same powers are not cumulative. It is a fallacy on the non stacking side of the argument.

Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct. In point of fact, the Non-Stacking side has presented valid evidence from the body of rules as written. The Stacking side, on the other hand, continues to present no counter argument, as their tactic in this debate is one of refusal of evidence rather than counter evidence.

Nos says I "hand-wave" my argument into existence, despite multiple pages of citations and quoted rules to the contrary. Yet, Nos has on his own "hand-waved" out of existence an entire section of rules that have an impact on his argument. I have yet to see the Stacking side present a full argument as counterpoint to the Non-Stacking argument. Simply saying the Stacking side has produced no evidence is to ignore dozens of pages of presented evidence found in over 45 pages of thread on this very subject.

Which is to say, you are incorrect, sir.

SJ


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Indeed, one side has rules that agree with them, the other side is inferring a restriction, and is therefore currently in error as far as RAW goes.

I'm going the simpler route, which is you are told 4-1-1=2

Still awaiting these rules you say agree with your view of the topic. While "4-1-1" does indeed equal "2", "4-E-E-E" still equals "4-E" if "E" is non-cumulative.

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause

Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.

I agree, psychic powers stack in most cases, Protect, Horrify, etc.. I do not think Enfeeble stacks with itself due to its wording. Whilst this power is in effect is the clause that negates stacking. The unit is either enfeebled or it isnt. If it is, then you apply the -1.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause

Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.

"Whilst the power is in effect..."
So these words mean nothing to you? Why are you ignoring text? The result of the a successful use of the power is that the power is in effect on the unit. This makes the question of 'how many times can it be in effect on a unit?' very relevant. Unless of course your just going to continue to ignore that line and repeat the 'the effect is a modifier' over and over. In which case it won't matter to you at all but neither will the rules in that case.

"Whilst the power is in effect the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness..."

This is a cause and effect relationship here between the power being 'in effect' and the modifiers. By definition, if the cause(power in effect) is not cumulative, it's effects cannot be increased in either quantity, volume or force(no additional modifiers) by adding more of the cause(power in effect). Therefore it does not matter if modifiers are cumulative as there can be no additional modifiers if the 'Enfeebles in effect' are not cumulative.

I thought we were arguing about Hammerhand, it doesn't have the "Whilst the power is in effect" wording. Plus the wording is ambiguous, it is possible that "the power" refers to that manifestation of Enfeeble rather than Enfeeble in and of itself. In that interpretation of Enfeeble it would be allowed to stack because you would have multiple powers in effect.

Abandon has come up with a good point. The actual wording of the rule says while this power is in effect. So enfeeble doesn't seem to stack.

Doesn't change the whole thread though.

Also the BAO FAQ has ruled they do stack. Just food for thinking.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.

It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the situation we have here.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.

It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the reverse situation we have here.

FTFY

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.

It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the reverse situation we have here.

FTFY

So you have found something that restricts casting and resolution of two psychic powers on the same target unit?

Did you post it and I missed it?

The base rules allow stacking of Psychic powers, do you agree? If not please cite why, as we have shown clear and indisputable rules that allow a player to cast a psychic power twice on a single unit.

So you've posted permission for psychic powers to resolve cumulatively I must have missed it. Page and paragraph should be fine.

The it doesn't say I can't argument is not RaW neither is the A implies A logical fallacy you keep using...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.

It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the situation we have here.

Stay waiting on those rules you think proves your case. I posted mine, waiting for you to post yours. Per the forum tenets, prove I'm wrong, don't say I'm wrong.

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you've posted permission for psychic powers to resolve cumulatively I must have missed it. Page and paragraph should be fine.

The it doesn't say I can't argument is not RaW neither is the A implies A logical fallacy you keep using...

yup, they need permission, its a permissive ruleset,

none has been given.

no restriction is needed if no permission is given.

the stackers keep hand waving away all the specific powers that DO call out that they stack with themselves, as meaningless,
as well as all the rules talking about different powers stacking, as meaningless,
as well as the references in the special rules section to PP's,
and so on.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you've posted permission for psychic powers to resolve cumulatively I must have missed it. Page and paragraph should be fine.

The it doesn't say I can't argument is not RaW neither is the A implies A logical fallacy you keep using...

I have several times.

We have permission to resolve both psychic powers.

resolving the psychic power, in the case of hammerhand, involves adding a +1 Str to the unit.

we have it cast twice and there are two +1 modifiers that we need to resolve. Page 2 tells us how to go about 4+1+1 = 6...

Therefore Psychic powers have permission to stack.

I have several times.

We have permission to resolve both psychic powers.

We know you have permission to resolve both castings but you haven't shown permission to resolve them cumulatively thus generating the multiple modifiers for page 2 to become relevant.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have several times.

We have permission to resolve both psychic powers.

We know you have permission to resolve both castings but you haven't shown permission to resolve them cumulatively thus generating the multiple modifiers for page 2 to become relevant.

Yes we have. we have permission to cast and resolve both powers. resolving hammerhand applies a +1 strength. and then Page 2 covers cumulative additive effects. I.E. 4+1+1=6

All RAW and you have cited no denial of this permission.

Yes we have. we have permission to cast and resolve both powers. resolving hammerhand applies a +1 strength. and then Page 2 covers cumulative additive effects. I.E. 4+1+1=6

Resolving hammer hand puts a +1 modifier into place. Multiple resolutions of hammer hand do not put multiple +1 modifiers into place. 4+1 = 5

Prove that you resolve power cumulatively so you have multiple modifiers. You can't use page 2 until you have multiple modifiers. Show permission for that because you still haven't.

FlingitNow,
I decide to cast Hammerhand on unit "A".

1. I declare I am casting Hammerhand.
2. The psyker expends a Warp Charge.
3. I declare the target (which conveniently is the unit).
4. The unit takes a psychic test. Oh look, they rolled a 6.
5. They did not target an enemy so there is no Deny the Witch.
6. I resolve the psychic power, by adding +1 strength.

An attached IC decides to also use Hammerhand on unit "A'.
1. I declare I am casting Hammerhand.
2. The psyker expends a Warp Charge.
3. I declare the target (which conveniently is the unit).
4. The unit takes a psychic test. Oh look, they rolled a 6.
5. They did not target an enemy so there is no Deny the Witch.
6. I resolve the psychic power, by adding +1 strength.

Why are you not allowing me to resolve the second hammerhand? Where is your rule denying me permission to resolve the psychic power?

You resolve the 2nd power it just has no additional effect because they already have a hammer hand in effect. Unless hammer hand is cumulative with itself which you haven't shown to be true.

6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.

kambien wrote:
6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.

What decision? The power says the unit has +1 Strength. Therefore to resolve the power, the unit must have +1 Strength. If the unit does not have +1 Strength, the power has not been resolved.