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.

The key is "As long as the power is in effect..." wording.
'Whilst Enfeeble is in effect..." means that it doesn't care how many instances of Enfeeble is in effect, merely that at least one is. That's why the effects are not cumulative. This interpretation is supported by 'different powers are cumulative' sentence.

No it isnt. That sentence has, as you have been told and had it proven to many times, no effect on this discussion whatsoever

Your constant insistence on treating a reminder as a rule is wearing. Please desist, or provide some actual textual evidence to support.

The first time you cast enfeeble, the unit is -1T. The second time you cast it, what gives you permission to only look at their unmodified T so determine if you need to apply -1T? Page and paragraph please, or finally accept you have no actual rules based argument, 9 pages in.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No it isnt. That sentence has, as you have been told and had it proven to many times, no effect on this discussion whatsoever

Your constant insistence on treating a reminder as a rule is wearing.

It is reminder yes, of the fact that similar powers do not stack.

Please desist, or provide some actual textual evidence to support.

The first time you cast enfeeble, the unit is -1T. The second time you cast it, what gives you permission to only look at their unmodified T so determine if you need to apply -1T? Page and paragraph please, or finally accept you have no actual rules based argument, 9 pages in.

Why the similar powers do not stack is this (third time I say this.) 'Whilst this power is in effect..." When enfeeble is in effect the penalties are suffered, yes, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that further instances of Enfeeble would affect this in any way. The notion that you apply the penalty for each instance of Enfeeble is completely made up. This is same how many items say 'model with this..." making it irrelevant how many of that item the model has.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No it isnt. That sentence has, as you have been told and had it proven to many times, no effect on this discussion whatsoever

Your constant insistence on treating a reminder as a rule is wearing.

It is reminder yes, of the fact that similar powers do not stack.

Ah, I see you still struggle with basic logic. A->B does not mean that !A->!B. Apparently you need reminding of this fact.

It is a reminder that certain things "stack". there is also maths, which tells us that (assuming you accept basic axioms - do you? If you dont then please indicate so) 4 - 1 - 1 = 2.

Crimson wrote:Why the similar powers do not stack is this (third time I say this.) 'Whilst this power is in effect..." When enfeeble is in effect the penalties are suffered, yes, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that further instances of Enfeeble would affect this in any way. The notion that you apply the penalty for each instance of Enfeeble is completely made up. This is same how many items say 'model with this..." making it irrelevant how many of that item the model has.

Yep, it is the third time you have asserted something without actually have any backing. ASserting it doesnt make it fact, much as you assert that A->B means that !A->!B

So, do you have any facts to impart? Any real rules that state that ONLY different powers stack? Any proof that the basic maths in operation on page 3 are somehow suspended just because you have decided so?

You cast enfeeble. The unit is now -1T, while that is in effect. What is their T now? (X-1). You cast again. Prove, using REAL ACTUAL rules for the FIRST TIME this entire thread, that (X-1) is the end result, and not, as we all know the real rule is - (X-1)-1.

You are treating it as if the phrase "unmodified" were in use, effectively. Making up yet more rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Ah, I see you still struggle with basic logic. A->B does not mean that !A->!B. Apparently you need reminding of this fact.

I understand logic just fine, thank you. You however fail to understand that GW rules are not written as logical syntax. In any case, my point was not that the sentence was in itself sufficient proof for non-stacking, merely that it lends credence to the idea that this is what the writers had in mind. Unlike you, I do not think that GW intentionally puts misleading sentences in their rules to troll players (granted, they occasionally do this by mistake.)

Yep, it is the third time you have asserted something without actually have any backing. ASserting it doesnt make it fact, much as you assert that A->B means that !A->!B

So, do you have any facts to impart? Any real rules that state that ONLY different powers stack? Any proof that the basic maths in operation on page 3 are somehow suspended just because you have decided so?

Where is your proof that 'this power' in Enfeeble's rule text refers to individual instance of the power, instead of the power in general? Considering that it is in rules for the power, instead of area of rules that pertains casting powers, it is much more natural to assume that 'this power' refers to Enfeeble in general.

You cast enfeeble. The unit is now -1T, while that is in effect. What is their T now? (X-1). You cast again. Prove, using REAL ACTUAL rules for the FIRST TIME this entire thread, that (X-1) is the end result, and not, as we all know the real rule is - (X-1)-1.

You fail to realise that if 'this power' refers to Enfeeble in general, instead of individual instances of Enfeeble, it becomes a binary state.

Is Enfeeble in effect Y/N?
if Y -> apply effects.

The number of Enfeebles does not matter. This is BTW how pretty much all wargear, vehicle upgrades and special rules work in this game.

This is at least as valid reading of the rules as the multiple instance one. There in no rule that you can cite that would prove the individual instances stance.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, I see you still struggle with basic logic. A->B does not mean that !A->!B. Apparently you need reminding of this fact.

I understand logic just fine, thank you.

Yet you demonstrated proof of the exact opposite. Repeatedly, despite being corrected on the point.

Crimson wrote:You however fail to understand that GW rules are not written as logical syntax.

Wrong, actually. I have not cited logical syntax as proof of my argument, you have tried to use an illogical negation as proof of yours, I am simply showing that your claim is, in fact, a false claim to make and is unsupported.

Crimson wrote: In any case, my point was not that the sentence was in itself sufficient proof for non-stacking,

Yet you wrote something else entirely - that it is a reminder that non-stacking is the rule. When you havent yet managed to provide that rule, despite 9 pages of asking.

Crimson wrote:merely that it lends credence to the idea that this is what the writers had in mind.

What, that the writers dont understand logic, and instead of placing a reminder for X they actually were trying to "remind" you of !X? How illogical a concept is that!

Crimson wrote: Unlike you, I do not think that GW intentionally puts misleading sentences in their rules to troll players (granted, they occasionally do this by mistake.)

Strict lie, and a total misrepresentation of what I have posted. reported for a personal attack. Retract your lie.

Crimson wrote:Where is your proof that 'this power' in Enfeeble's rule text refers to individual instance of the power, instead of the power in general? Considering that it is in rules for the power, instead of area of rules that pertains casting powers, it is much more natural to assume that 'this power' refers to Enfeeble in general.

Ah, so you still have no rules to impart?

WHen you resolve the power, you look at what it odes and apply the effects. What is allowing you to ignore the effects? Page and para, whenever youre ready to actually comply with the tenets of the forum.

Crimson wrote:You fail to realise that if 'this power' refers to Enfeeble in general, instead of individual instances of Enfeeble, it becomes a binary state.

Is Enfeeble in effect Y/N?
if Y -> apply effects.

The number of Enfeebles does not matter. This is BTW how pretty much all wargear, vehicle upgrades and special rules work in this game.

Ah, so a dissimilar case should be used to apply an illogical, ignoiring maths "solution" here?

Uh, no. I'm good applying 4-1-1 and arriving at 2, you can keep it at 3 if you like - just acknowledge your houserule and move on.

Crimson wrote:This is at least as valid reading of the rules as the multiple instance one. There in no rule that you can cite that would prove the individual instances stance.

Except, as has been shown over nine pages youy have no textual support for your reading, no rules support for your reading, and your reading ignores basic maths.

So no, I reject your assertion that they are !"equal", or that "natural" describes a method whcih ignores basic mathematics to arrive at an illogical, rules-less position.

Your argument is refuted, fully, and your unwillingness to accept it is telling.

I can't be arsed to quote the entire rant. Where is you proof that being affected be Enfeeble is not a binary state?

I do not ignore the effects of the power. The result of successful casting of Enfeeble is that Enfeeble is now on effect on the target unit. Result of Enfeeble being on effect on the target unit is that the unit suffers certain penalties. The notion that the number of instances of Enfeeble would affect the results is made up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, I'm curious to know whether people think that Dominate would stack too, so that the target unit would have to pass multiple Ld tests to do things?





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Eldar Death Mission kinda supports non-stacking. It can be cast several times, but all it does is refresh counters.

Sorry, "rant"?

Feel free to not respond to the points showing you lying, it does you no favours to do so.

You resolve - you are "while in effect" -1T. You are now T(X-1)

You cast again. Prove that you are allowed to ignore the prior casting, and instead of being (X-1)-1, you are still just X-1.

Some proof would be good. Anything. nine pages in and you still cannot support your argument - that goes against the basic maths supported in the rulebook under multiple modifiers, amongst others

Dominate - already answered. At least twice. Have you read the thread? Has different wording. Entirely so

So, final time of asking before you are considered to have conceded the point - prove, using rules with a page and paragraph, that 4-1-1=3, and not 2

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You resolve - you are "while in effect" -1T. You are now T(X-1)

You cast again. Prove that you are allowed to ignore the prior casting, and instead of being (X-1)-1, you are still just X-1.

Because it already is in effect. Casting it again does not make it be any more in effect!

Some proof would be good. Anything. nine pages in and you still cannot support your argument - that goes against the basic maths supported in the rulebook under multiple modifiers, amongst others

Some proof that 'power being in effect' is not a binary state like having a piece of wargear or special rule would be nice too, but you cannot provide that.

Dominate - already answered. At least twice. Have you read the thread? Has different wording. Entirely so

No it doesn't. It has the exact same wording. 'Whilst the power is in effect ->' If multiple instances of Enfeeble get to apply their effects independently, then multiple instances of Dominate get too. At least be consistent.

You guys do realise that USRs have the same reminder as psychic powers right? Page 32 "Compendium of Special" rules section.

So there is a reminder using the exact same wording as USRs that have a restriction but this reminder in psychic powers is only to remind you that everything stacks?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So if I have a khorne lord on a juggernaut with an axe of blind fury do I get +4 cos of two rage USRs?
Or is it a case of when that model charges it only gets to use one of the rules due to USR rules even though maths always stack?

You guys do realise that USRs have the same reminder as psychic powers right? Since there is a reminder does that mean that there is a reminder for a rule that GW didn't put in?
Page 32 "Compendium of Special" rules section.

Totally false, not sure why you'd even try this line of thought.
The part you're missing is "Unless otherwise stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a Special Rule more than once".
Completely different to the Psychic Powers rule.

But since the Psychic Powers lacks that sentence compared to the USR section, that further supports that they should infact stack. Thanks for pointing it out!

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You guys do realise that USRs have the same reminder as psychic powers right? Page 32 "Compendium of Special" rules section.

So there is a reminder using the exact same wording as USRs that have a restriction but this reminder in psychic powers is only to remind you that everything stacks?

Since USRs have an additional restriction, the wording is not "the exact same" but in fact is different.
I'm sure you just worded your sentence wrong and weren't trying to deliberately mislead everyone. Also, the fact that USRs don't stack was already brought up - perhaps you could read the thread.

Crimson - still not going to apologise for your lie?

Your argument is done, and has been for 9 pages. Good day.

 grendel083 wrote:

The part you're missing is "Unless otherwise stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a Special Rule more than once".
Completely different to the Psychic Powers rule.

But since the Psychic Powers lacks that sentence compared to the USR section, that further supports that they should infact stack. Thanks for pointing it out!

If they would've said "Unless otherwise stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a Psychic Power more than once", then people would be asking if it means that the can only cast certain power on the unit once per game... Though they could have worded it differently.

In any case, I think the restriction is in powers themselves, though this thread clearly demonstrates that a FAQ is needed. This has a huge impact on Eldar, they have a bunch maledictions that are incredibly nasty if allowed to stack and they can get them in great numbers.

rigeld2 wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
You guys do realise that USRs have the same reminder as psychic powers right? Page 32 "Compendium of Special" rules section.

So there is a reminder using the exact same wording as USRs that have a restriction but this reminder in psychic powers is only to remind you that everything stacks?

Since USRs have an additional restriction, the wording is not "the exact same" but in fact is different.
I'm sure you just worded your sentence wrong and weren't trying to deliberately mislead everyone. Also, the fact that USRs don't stack was already brought up - perhaps you could read the thread.

Indeed. I expect page 10 we'll be back to the no-stack side claiming that "different powers stack" means that ONLY different ones stack, by "accidentally" inserting the word only in when "quoting" the rule. Totally accidentally of course.

This binary state argument is interesting, in a totally-ignores-the-rule way, of course.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - still not going to apologise for your lie?

It was honest impression based on what you said. A mistake perhaps, but not a lie. In any case, I do apologise any offence caused.

Your argument is done, and has been for 9 pages. Good day.

So no rules citation for 'power being in effect' being non-binary then? OK. I'd really would have liked to hear your reasoning for Enfeeble stacking but Dominate not stacking, though. Because till that point I understood your stance even though I disagreed. That bit however... not seeing it, the wording is pretty much the same. Either both stack or neither does.

Have you considered looking at the wording of the Ork WAAAGH! Banner for comparison?

It's great to see that this thread has descended into name calling and insults. Good work.
As for the lies and misleading read this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfog8WjfKyo

As for page 32 "However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
As for page 68 "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumilative"

So going on what "multiple different" means in USRs why is it different here? Just answer that, without insulting or name calling or any bs.
One clear message that answers this question to a satisfactory degree and you win.

Pardon? What insults?

 grendel083 wrote:
Have you considered looking at the wording of the Ork WAAAGH! Banner for comparison?

Yes, I have. It is quite different.

And if that item is any kind of argument against stacking of Dominate it is also argument against stacking of Enfeeble.

If powers were worded just:" The target unit suffers (penalty) until end of following turn" I'd agree with the stacking. They however are not. The benefits/penalties are tied to the power being in effect. This is similar like items (such as the Waaagh banner) are tied to having the item. Multiple items or multiple instances of the power do not alter this. The power is either in effect or is not in effect.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Have you considered looking at the wording of the Ork WAAAGH! Banner for comparison?

Yes, I have. It is quite different.

It's an item that while in effect gives a unit +1 WS.
They felt the need to include wording that would prevent it stacking.

 grendel083 wrote:

It's an item that while in effect gives a unit +1 WS.
They felt the need to include wording that would prevent it stacking.

"A Mob Including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"

This?

Liturgies - it has been answered. Standard Maths, which the rulebook uses, makes it cumulative.

You have to find a restriction which means it isnt cumulative. No "bs" , just - for the first time in 9 pages - find a restriction.

BEcause, as has been said since the start, permission has been shown - over and over.

Nos, repeating it does not make it true.

We agree about the standard math, but you have to show that
'Whilst the power is in effect' does not mean the power in general but individual instances of the power.

You have not done that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, even though Liturgies of Blood's point may not be sufficient in itself, it shows that 'different' actually meaning 'another' interpretation is wrong.

This means that if all powers stack, and the sentence is nonsensical. It would be indeed a case of GW putting a misleading sentence to the book just to troll the players. However, I'm told that no one actually believes that, and merely suggesting that someone would is a grave offence.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Have you considered looking at the wording of the Ork WAAAGH! Banner for comparison?

Yes, I have. It is quite different.

It's an item that while in effect gives a unit +1 WS.
They felt the need to include wording that would prevent it stacking.

Could be because the Ork codex is not a 6th Ed codex, so it contains language that might be redundant in 6th due to language in the current BRB.

As to the recent pages added to this thread, the 'Stacker' position appears to be based on RAI as they repeatedly state that their position is based on an implied rule that is not written anywhere in the BRB, yet deny posted RAW to the contrary. Good show!

The 'Non-Stacker' position remains that permission to stack must to given per RAW before an effect can be cumulative, which actually is supported by RAW and cited several times.

On calling people liars, I will be reporting each instance as not only does it ignore the forum's tenets, but also falls under Internet Bullying, which is illegal in many countries, including the United States and most of Europe. Please refrain from this activity.

SJ

 liturgies of blood wrote:
So going on what "multiple different" means in USRs why is it different here? Just answer that, without insulting or name calling or any bs.
One clear message that answers this question to a satisfactory degree and you win.

You've again ignored a specific restriction that USRs have. That's the reason it's different. That sentence does not exist at all in the psychic power rules.
That difference makes them completely different.

Yes rigeld, I notice that. What I want you to understand is that "multiple different" doesn't mean "the same again".

If I say I want four candles in paragraph 1, when I repeat it in paragraph two it doesn't magically become fork handles.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As to the recent pages added to this thread, the 'Stacker' position appears to be based on RAI as they repeatedly state that their position is based on an implied rule that is not written anywhere in the BRB, yet deny posted RAW to the contrary. Good show!

The 'Non-Stacker' position remains that permission to stack must to given per RAW before an effect can be cumulative, which actually is supported by RAW and cited several times.

Either you got these two paragraphs mixed up, or you haven't read this thread.
The "Stacker" side has absolutely been quoting rules, don't know how you can say there's been no RAW posted. To be fair both sides have, and posts like this only serve to drag a good natured discussion into the dirt.

It would be better if you contributed to the discussion rather than declare falsehoods (since you're against the word 'lies' while posting... Err.. lies).

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Yes rigeld, I notice that. What I want you to understand is that "multiple different" doesn't mean "the same again".

If I say I want four candles in paragraph 1, when I repeat it in paragraph two it doesn't magically become fork handles.

I've never said otherwise?

You're trying to use one situation to justify another when they're not even remotely comparable.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're trying to use one situation to justify another when they're not even remotely comparable.

They're comparable enough that is unlikely that the writers used word 'different' to mean, eh, different thing in the two cases.
Many people advanced the notion that 'different power' actually meant 'another power.' This shows that such interpretation is unlikely.

I know this is not enough for RAW-über-alles people, but to me it shows designer intent rather clearly.