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:Abandon - so you are assuming that maths is not followed?

Page and graph to support your assertion. We have pages that show your assertion to be untrue, however it would be good for you to actually provide some ruels

"Stacking" is a totally redundant term here.

Math should only be applied where the BRB tells us to do so and in the manor we are told to do so.

The argument that you are correct because basic math permits them to stack is lolz (sorry but it is)
Basic math is based on cumulative units that stack so that one plus one can equal two.

So the argument saying:

Because basic math says they stack, they stack.
-is exactly the same as-
Because they stack, they stack.

What do you call that kind of argument again?... I call it lolz

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, to summarise:

we have an argument based on supposed intent, and not rules - that is the "no stack". The only rules argument made is that somehow a reminder isnt a reminder, but an implied restriction

On the other side you have an argument based on the rulebook, supported through pages of rules citations, which is not based on divining supposed "intent", and which is consistent with how the rulebook presents maths and logic.

Nope, your defaulting to a basic mathematical system that allows everything to accumulate which is not stated as being the case (unsupported). It does tells us though that system does apply to different powers/effects/etc.

nosferatu1001 wrote:In your opinion it is only a reminder under those circumstances. Otherwise it is a reminder that powers can stack.

Resolving enfeeble tells you to reduce S and T. Not doing so brings us back to your first attempted argument - that you dont have to reduce S and T to resolve the power. Which remains a nonsense argument.

It tells you different powers can stack. You continuously miss-state that.

Any power can resolve with no or partial effect if some or all is overridden by something else. This tells us that powers can indeed be resolved without full or even any effect.

DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see now, the crux of the issue is your misunderstanding of the rules listed on page 32. Am I to assume that you only consider USR's to be special rules?

SJ

We can only look at what they tell us are special rules. Anything else can not be in a permissive ruleset.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

It says special rules are one of two places, "For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order." (32) (The Special rules listed after Page 32 starting on Page 33), and "laid out in their codex" for "troops have their own unique abilities"

Enfeeble is neither of these.

It seems you are the one with the misunderstanding of what a special rule is.

So special rules are just what we are told are special rules and nothing else is? Is that because they call some things special rules and not others in a permissive rule set?

The permissive rule set also only calls different powers cumulative and not others... right in the section telling how powers are resolved...

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Well, let’s look at what they tell us is “special rules” on page 32 of the BRB:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength …

Or the passage I’ve already posted above,
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.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list …


This means that any ability, such as a psychic power, the changes how the normal game works is considered a “special rule” and therefore follows the rules listed for “special rules”.

Your conclusion "This means that any ability, such as a psychic power, the changes how the normal game works is considered a “special rule”" has no backing in what you posted and I quoted.

This part is fluff and not rules "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength …"

and Enfeeble does not make it "abundantly clear" that "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers" Enfeeble says nothing about special rules.

Mind quoting to me what you thought in your post that you thought were the rules you posted, because I am not seeing any actual rules about Psychic powers being special rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, I would really like to see someone, anyone cite a non-implied rule that states multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative rather than concurrent. If you can.

Multiple modifiers on P.2, and basic Math, tell us that we "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions" P.2

Applying a -1 from one enfeeble, then not applying the second -1 from a different enfeeble is not applying "any" subtractions. It is only applying some subtractions, they tell us to apply any subtractions (Any in this case meaning all).

Modifiers are the result of an effect. If two effects are not cumulative, they by definition they would have no added result to add into the formula on page 2.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This means that any ability, such as a psychic power, the changes how the normal game works is considered a “special rule” and therefore follows the rules listed for “special rules”

You realize that you posted no rules that actually say this right?

I have cited and posted the rules in support of my argument, so you will have to a bit more specific.

In all reality this quote separates Psychic powers from 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.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list …

How so?

Is it abundantly clear that Enfeeble grants a special rule?
Compare it to Endurance, for example. Or Iron Arm.

rigeld2 wrote:

Is it abundantly clear that Enfeeble grants a special rule?
Compare it to Endurance, for example. Or Iron Arm.

Yes. I posted why, as well, a few posts up.

SJ

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, I would really like to see someone, anyone cite a non-implied rule that states multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative rather than concurrent. If you can.

Multiple modifiers on P.2, and basic Math, tell us that we "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions" P.2

Applying a -1 from one enfeeble, then not applying the second -1 from a different enfeeble is not applying "any" subtractions. It is only applying some subtractions, they tell us to apply any subtractions (Any in this case meaning all).

Modifiers are the result of an effect. If two effects are not cumulative, they by definition they would have no added result to add into the formula on page 2.

Once you resolve both Psychic powers you must subtract 2 from toughness (-1T per Casting).

If you are not resolving the second enfeeble you are breaking the rules of math that the game uses.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Is it abundantly clear that Enfeeble grants a special rule?
Compare it to Endurance, for example. Or Iron Arm.

Yes. I posted why, as well, a few posts up.

I must have missed it, even rereading.
Suffice it to say that unless I'm blind or can't read its not "abundantly clear" at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, I would really like to see someone, anyone cite a non-implied rule that states multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative rather than concurrent. If you can.

Multiple modifiers on P.2, and basic Math, tell us that we "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions" P.2

Applying a -1 from one enfeeble, then not applying the second -1 from a different enfeeble is not applying "any" subtractions. It is only applying some subtractions, they tell us to apply any subtractions (Any in this case meaning all).

Modifiers are the result of an effect. If two effects are not cumulative, they by definition they would have no added result to add into the formula on page 2.

Once you resolve both Psychic powers you must subtract 2 from toughness (-1T per Casting).

If you are not resolving the second enfeeble you are breaking the rules of math that the game uses.

Cite the rule stating these effects are cumulative. Basic math proves nothing until you can show you are permitted to use those functions on these effects.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Once you resolve both Psychic powers you must subtract 2 from toughness (-1T per Casting).

If you are not resolving the second enfeeble you are breaking the rules of math that the game uses.

Incorrect. Nowhere in the rules does it state that a power must be resolved to its full effect every time, you are just implying that that is the case. The game does not break if multiple effects are concurrent rather than cumulative, yet the game could break if some effects are cumulative rather than concurrent. "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ..." literally means that if the effect is active on the target, apply this modifier. It doesn't matter how many times the effect is placed on the target, the target never suffers more than one application of the modifier “Whilst the power is in effect”.

If your defense is that basic math tells us to add 1 and 1 to make 2, all I can say is: yep, 1+1=2. But does 1+1+1+1+1+1=6 in a rule set that tells us treat it as 1+(1, 1, 1, 1, 1)=2 actually equal 6? No, because the rule set defines what gets added to what, not basic math. Page 2 tells us to multiply before adding or subtracting, then replace values. In a concurrent situation, each application of an effect replaces the previous effect. In a cumulative situation, each application of an effect would progressively stack. In a permissive rule set, what we can do is defined, while we can't do is generally omitted.

Per pages 2, 32, and 68, we are told that multiple applications of the same ability are concurrent while applications of different abilities are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Enfeeble is a psychic power that grants the effect of -1 to Strength and Toughness as well as treating all terrain as difficult. Per the rules as written, Enfeeble+Enfeeble+Enfeeble = -1 S/T+DT because the effect is concurrent. In order for Enfeeble to be cumulative, its special rules need to include a statement noting that its effect is cumulative. No such language exists. And since in a permissive rule set omission =/= permission, "Enfeeble+Enfeeble+Enfeeble" will always equal "-1 S/T+DT".

rigeld2 wrote:

I must have missed it, even rereading.
Suffice it to say that unless I'm blind or can't read its not "abundantly clear" at all.

As you say.

SJ

 Abandon wrote:
Cite the rule stating these effects are cumulative. Basic math proves nothing until you can show you are permitted to use those functions on these effects.

It has already been cited, but I will show you again.

A Psychic Power has permission granted by the psychic power rules on page 68 to resolve the power.
How do we resolve Enfeeble? We apply -1 S and T.

or a more in depth version:

Basic math supports stacking.
Modifiers use basic math (including pemdas).
We have permission to cast power.
Through casting the power we are told to resolve power (which requires applying -1 S and T).
This permission is not denied anywhere.

All with zero assumptions of the rules.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per pages 2, 32, and 68, we are told that multiple applications of the same ability are concurrent while applications of different abilities are cumulative

This is utterly incorrect.

We are told that multiple applications of the same special rule are concurrent.

a Psychic power is not a special rule...

you have not quoted anything that says a Psychic power is a Special Rule, so it is not.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nowhere in the rules does it state that a power must be resolved to its full effect every time

It says to resolve the power, this intrinsically includes applying the effects of the power onto the target unit.

If you do not come up with any solid rules to restrict that which has already been granted, then I will be forced to say good argument, but thank you for conceding.

 DeathReaper wrote:
[

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nowhere in the rules does it state that a power must be resolved to its full effect every time

It says to resolve the power, this intrinsically includes applying the effects of the power onto the target unit.

If you do not come up with any solid rules to restrict that which has already been granted, then I will be forced to say good argument, but thank you for conceding.

Ok, please resolve Enfeeble on a Chimera. I'll wait.

SJ

Maybe you missed the FaQ:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers? (p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

Enfeeble is clearly a malediction power that will have no effect on vehicles.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Cite the rule stating these effects are cumulative. Basic math proves nothing until you can show you are permitted to use those functions on these effects.

It has already been cited, but I will show you again.

A Psychic Power has permission granted by the psychic power rules on page 68 to resolve the power.
How do we resolve Enfeeble? We apply -1 S and T.

or a more in depth version:

Basic math supports stacking.
Modifiers use basic math (including pemdas).
We have permission to cast power.
Through casting the power we are told to resolve power (which requires applying -1 S and T).
This permission is not denied anywhere.

All with zero assumptions of the rules.

Does the Resolve Psychic Power section tell you that two enfeebles are cumulative? No. So it does not give you permission to treat it as such. IE, enfeeble + enfeeble = (2)enfeeble = -2S/T would require permission to add these effects together. Such permission is only granted to 'different' powers, not to two of the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Maybe you missed the FaQ:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers? (p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

Enfeeble is clearly a malediction power that will have no effect on vehicles.

Oh but according to you, you didn't resolve the power legally because you did not apply the -1S/T.... Wow, I guess we can resolve them without all penalties being applied.... Who'd have thought that... oh wait, I know someone like that...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Maybe you missed the FaQ:

Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers? (p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles.

Enfeeble is clearly a malediction power that will have no effect on vehicles.

Excellent! That is the quote I wanted you to post. Since in this instance a psychic power can resolve yet have no effect, then why is it game breaking for the exact same psychic power to resolve with no effect on a target that already has its effect active? That quote above just dismissed the entire argument that permission to resolve equals permission to stack.

In addition, no one has yet posted a rule that gives multiple applications of the same ability permission to stack. Yet, not only have I and others cited actual rules that deny permission to stack, we've posted the rules in question. Stating that basic math equals permission to stack also fails, as has been pointed out by myself and others. Stating that psychic powers do not grant “special rules” is also false due to page 32 specifically stating that special rules can be granted by psychic powers, while the actual power in question lists its rules on page 419 as “Enfeeble is a malediction that …”. Again, omission =/= permission. If your entire argument hangs on the statement "it doesn't say I can't", then it looks like you will be conceding.

SJ

Except it does not have its effect active, a different Enfeeble does, which has no bearing on the second -1T

You are correct that "it doesn't say I can't" is not the correct way to argue a point, but I am not doing that.

I am saying I have permission (AKA It says I can cast two different Enfeebles at the same target) and asking you to find a restriction that disallows the permitted action.

can resolve yet have no effect is different than not letting something resolve.

If you do not reduce the Toughness by 1 you have not let the second enfeeble resolve.

Enfeeble can resolve on a vehicle to no effect as the Vehicle does not have a Toughness stat to reduce.

If you can not find a restriction then it is your side that must concede..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Such permission is only granted to 'different' powers, not to two of the same.

Different Maledictions are cumulative does not equal The same Malediction is not cumulative.

Know the difference.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does not have its effect active, a different Enfeeble does, which has no bearing on the second -1T

You are correct that normally "it doesn't say I can't" is now the way to argue a point, but I am not doing that.

I am saying I have permission (AKA It says I can cast two different Enfeebles at the same target) and asking you to find a restriction that disallows the permitted action.

If you can not find a restriction then it is your side that must concede..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Such permission is only granted to 'different' powers, not to two of the same.

.

Nothing stops you from using the power twice on the same target. Nothing permits it to have any additional effect either though as it is not stated as being cumulative... as in stack-able... as in basic addition works when deciding the total effect.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Different Maledictions are cumulative does not equal The same Malediction is not cumulative.

Know the difference.

Correct and I have not said anything of the sort. I do keep asking where the 'same' maledictions are permitted to be cumulative and not getting any sound responses.

-You tell me page 2 says to add modifiers together but fail to show permission to apply additional modifiers (which would require stacking)
-You say the power effects must be applied in full to resolve the power, we found out that isn't true (with a firm grasp on cumulative vs. non-cumulative you'd realize that doesn't matter anyway)
-You say basic math says it stacks but basic math only works if you assume it stacks (It stacks therefore it stacks is a rather unsound argument)

Did I miss anything?

"Such permission is only granted to 'different' powers, not to two of the same."

THat is your falsehood right there. You DID claim that only different powers have permission to stack, when in fact there is a reminder that different powers CAN stack.

Jeffersonian - another classic here.

Can you prove enfeeble grants a special rule, and that granting is made clear in the power? Please cite this, or concede.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except it does not have its effect active, a different Enfeeble does, which has no bearing on the second -1T

There are not effects for different Enfeebles, there's only effect for Enfeeble being in effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Such permission is only granted to 'different' powers, not to two of the same."

THat is your falsehood right there. You DID claim that only different powers have permission to stack, when in fact there is a reminder that different powers CAN stack.

Why would there be such a reminder? If all powers stack the reminder is absurd.

In your opinion only

Why does GW stuff redundant rules reminders in across the board? DPA being one you have repeatedly handwaved away.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I must have missed it, even rereading.
Suffice it to say that unless I'm blind or can't read its not "abundantly clear" at all.

As you say.

Great, so you never cited anything to support that statement. Thanks for the clarification and admitting that you have no support for saying Enfeeble grants a special rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion only

Why does GW stuff redundant rules reminders in across the board? DPA being one you have repeatedly handwaved away.

You are being deliberately obtuse. Rules for a specific thing reminding you about general rules that are clearly spelled elsewhere is not odd. General rules for a situation reminding you that a rule (that has never printed anywhere) applies to certain subsection of things too is utterly bizarre.

The whole stacking stance hinges on 'It doesn't say I can't!" which is usually really bad approach to take in this game, as well as on the false notion that resolving Enfeeble directly causes the penalties. When we add to that the idea that somehow Dominate does not stack, it is obvious that the whole position is just a huge mess.

Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion only

Why does GW stuff redundant rules reminders in across the board? DPA being one you have repeatedly handwaved away.

You are being deliberately obtuse. Rules for a specific thing reminding you about general rules that are clearly spelled elsewhere is not odd. General rules for a situation reminding you that a rule (that has never printed anywhere) applies to certain subsection of things too is utterly bizarre.

Another falsehood. Please stop casting negative aspersions on those disagreeing with you

They printed that the rules for mathematics still apply in this game, so 4-1-1 = 2, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Crimson wrote: The whole stacking stance hinges on 'It doesn't say I can't!"

Another falsehood. Retract it, and apologise. Sufficient rules quotes have been given to prove that statement of yours to be a lie.

Crimson wrote: which is usually really bad approach to take in this game, as well as on the false notion that resolving Enfeeble directly causes the penalties. When we add to that the idea that somehow Dominate does not stack, it is obvious that the whole position is just a huge mess.

Again, only in your rule-less assertion that this is the case.

You keep equating dominates and enfeeble, despite the clear differences between the two. You kep handwaving away the FACT that GW consistently print reminders about rules. You keep handwaving away your insistence that 4-1-1 is not 2, but 3.

Keep going, after 11 pages you still cannot prove thgatr the rules of basic mathematics do not apply, despite GW stating so. You cannot provide any proof that Enfeeble is a special rule, despite that being the only hope of an argument you have left.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I must have missed it, even rereading.
Suffice it to say that unless I'm blind or can't read its not "abundantly clear" at all.

As you say.

Great, so you never cited anything to support that statement. Thanks for the clarification and admitting that you have no support for saying Enfeeble grants a special rule.

Actually, my statement "as you say" supports your statement "unless I'm blind or can't read". Which is to say, I'm agreeing with you that you must be either blind or unable the comprehend the written language. Its a statement you made, all I did was decline further dialog.

SJ

Ah, so you are unwilling to support your statement, and will resort to insults instead?

I think after 11 pages and far too many digs and insults we're best leaving this one.