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 comparison is relevant because they worded the rules for USR's and maledictions the exact same way.

And then by looking at the reminders of those USR's we see they worded them properly to show stealth does not stack with stealth, and does stack with a different USR shroud.

From here we can see the intent and apply it the same way to maledictions.

Now if only the stacking side had any permission for the same malediction to stack, they might have a point instead of just insisting they're right with no rules to support them.

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

A rule noting that different abilities stack is not a prohibition against the same ability stacking. Affirming permission to do something isn't even an implicit restriction on something else.

Plus, if you look at the phrase in the context of its own sentence, the word different is pretty clearly referring to different castings of the same power, not to the casting of two different powers. Otherwise there wouldn't even be a reason to print that sentence.

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

Yes that is what resolving means - but to a specific application, not a general rule which is what you need to state that it cannot stack. You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1, you CAN determine it doesnt stack.

You have misused the term "resolve" yourself, by stating a general result (not stack) is the outcome of the power. No, the outcome of the power is -1T; this never alters.

Now, can you provide any rule restricting Enfeeble from resolving? Page and para.

 Ailaros wrote:
A rule noting that different abilities stack is not a prohibition against the same ability stacking. Affirming permission to do something isn't even an implicit restriction on something else.

Plus, if you look at the phrase in the context of its own sentence, the word different is pretty clearly referring to different castings of the same power, not to the casting of two different powers. Otherwise there wouldn't even be a reason to print that sentence.

the words "different maledictions" means actual maledictions, no mention of casters anywhere on that sentence.

And with permissive rules, you have permission to stack different maledictions, and no permission to stack identical maledictions. SO without implicit permission for enfeeble to stack with itself, it can't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:
determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

No, reducing the toughness by 1 is resolving the power. Otherwise you have a rule showing enfeeble resolves by not doing anything?

that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

Yes that is what resolving means - but to a specific application, not a general rule which is what you need to state that it cannot stack. You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1, you CAN determine it doesnt stack.

You have misused the term "resolve" yourself, by stating a general result (not stack) is the outcome of the power. No, the outcome of the power is -1T; this never alters.

Now, can you provide any rule restricting Enfeeble from resolving? Page and para.

Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?
Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

kambien wrote:
Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?

Yes. It'll have little effect on most vehicles as they don't have a S or T to lower. (They'll still treat all terrain as difficult)

Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

Yes, but the malediction rules state that you can't lower the T below 1.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?

Yes. It'll have little effect on most vehicles as they don't have a S or T to lower. (They'll still treat all terrain as difficult)

Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

Yes, but the malediction rules state that you can't lower the T below 1.

So will confirm that the statement

"You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1"

is indeed incorrect

Seriously, close this thread. It has been done numerous times. No ill will towards the OP because it was an innocent question. However, both sides present valid arguments but the rules were written in a way that only RAI can really be applied. No one can present a legit comparison because one doesn't exist. Comparing unlike examples solves nothing and this will just degrade into another caps lock shouting match. SIMPLE ANSWER: this will have to be resolved by your local TO. If its a friendly pickup game than do a dice roll.

Sirlynch - yes, it is permissive. I have permission to cast and resolve the power, and the power reduces toughness by 1.

Find the restriction which states this does not happen a second time.

You have created a requirement "the power must explicitly be allowed to stack" that doesnt exist in the rules, and claiming that is the whole of the rule. It isnt.

If you dont make up a requirement that doesnt exist, multiple castings will each resolve and lower the toughness. As you claim that this does not happen, page and paragraph where permission to cast AND RESOLVE the power is removed.

Page and graph, or retract yoru "RAW" claim, as you have so far failed to provide any rules that restrict the general permission found in the psychic power rules.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Since i don't have the enfeeble rules in front of me let me ask you :
Can you cast enfeeble on a vehicle ?

Yes. It'll have little effect on most vehicles as they don't have a S or T to lower. (They'll still treat all terrain as difficult)

Can you cast it on a t1 model ?

Yes, but the malediction rules state that you can't lower the T below 1.

So will confirm that the statement

"You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1"

is indeed incorrect

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.
Do you have a rule that stops the 2nd enfeeble from resolving?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirlynch - yes, it is permissive. I have permission to cast and resolve the power, and the power reduces toughness by 1.

Find the restriction which states this does not happen a second time.

You have created a requirement "the power must explicitly be allowed to stack" that doesnt exist in the rules, and claiming that is the whole of the rule. It isnt.

If you dont make up a requirement that doesnt exist, multiple castings will each resolve and lower the toughness. As you claim that this does not happen, page and paragraph where permission to cast AND RESOLVE the power is removed.

Page and graph, or retract yoru "RAW" claim, as you have so far failed to provide any rules that restrict the general permission found in the psychic power rules.

As you have yet to provide any page or grpah to support you're claim obviously you have no case what so ever, RAW or otherwise. I'll take this as your admission you have no RAW case to make.

I've provided many pages that support my RAW case.

You can resolve the power multiple times, but as they are not cumulative they only lower the S & T by 1.

So will confirm that the statement

"You cannot resolve enfeeble and not perform the -1T, as the outcome of a succesful casting of the power "enfeeble" is the toughness dropping by 1"

is indeed incorrect

rigeld2 wrote:

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.

But according to nos , if you do not apply the -1t , therefore you did not resolve the power.
Your contradicting yourself

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.

But according to nos , if you do not apply the -1t , therefore you did not resolve the power.
Your contradicting yourself

Without a rule saying otherwise, if you don't apply the -1S/T you're not resolving the power.

A model with 1T does have a rule saying otherwise.
Please find a rule saying otherwise to deal with the 2nd-nth power.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

No - because there's a rule forbidding that part of the power from resolving.

But according to nos , if you do not apply the -1t , therefore you did not resolve the power.
Your contradicting yourself

Without a rule saying otherwise, if you don't apply the -1S/T you're not resolving the power.

A model with 1T does have a rule saying otherwise.
Please find a rule saying otherwise to deal with the 2nd-nth power.

so then you do agree with me

kambien wrote:determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

kambien wrote:that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

kambien wrote:so then you do agree with me

No, I don't. Absent a specific rule saying otherwise, there's no reason to say that it doesn't stack.

The arguments put forth have changed my opinion, I think multiple castings of a malediction will stack, as you have permission to to use and resolve the psychic power, as per the rules governing maledictions, and nothing explicitly stating that they don't stack.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

kambien wrote:that is incorrect and a misuse in the definition of resolve. Resolving is simply determining the outcome .

kambien wrote:so then you do agree with me

No, I don't. Absent a specific rule saying otherwise, there's no reason to say that it doesn't stack.

i hope you realize my argument has no bearing on whether is stacks or not right ? It has been solely attacking the misuse of the word resolve

kambien wrote:
i hope you realize my argument has no bearing on whether is stacks or not right ? It has been solely attacking the misuse of the word resolve

It wasn't misused. Not applying the -1 S/T means the power wasn't resolved.
If you have a rule saying that you can't apply the -1S/T for whatever reason, then the power wasn't resolved.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
i hope you realize my argument has no bearing on whether is stacks or not right ? It has been solely attacking the misuse of the word resolve

It wasn't misused. Not applying the -1 S/T means the power wasn't resolved.
If you have a rule saying that you can't apply the -1S/T for whatever reason, then the power wasn't resolved.

Incorrect . No effect is a resolution

Actually it's the absence of a resolution - the power was not resolved because it was not allowed to.

An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its

2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

2 + 2 = 4
it was resolved and the outcome is 4

2 + -2 = 0
it was resolved and the outcome was nothing

Now, I'm not going into the argument on stacking or not again but resolve does have a few varied meanings.
I think it is also incorrect to say that not applying modifiers is the same as not resolving a power. It is not an absolute as there are lots of powers that cannot be fully applied in certain circumstances.
Iron arm on a furioso librarian can only be partially applied, certain maledictions on certain units etc.

It is possible that the use of the word could be meant to conclude the power's effect and apply the modifiers but it could be to render the power completed.
If I use Iron Arm on my dread to get +D3 strength for a combat that will probably last into the opponents turn when I charge with my dread, I cannot apply the effects fully but that isn't the same as not resolving (or not resolving fully). Resolving is just the attempt to apply the effects, whether the effects can be applied is a different thing entirely.

Resolving an argument isn't winning an argument, it's ending it.

Sir lynch - rules were provided, you failed to rebut, and you initial case failed to show that powers do not stack.

Psychic powers say to resolve, you there fore have permission. Now could you find a rule that removes that permission? anything?

Refusing again will be considered concession.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir lynch - rules were provided, you failed to rebut, and you initial case failed to show that powers do not stack.

Psychic powers say to resolve, you there fore have permission. Now could you find a rule that removes that permission? anything?

Refusing again will be considered concession.

Could you clarify what "you there fore have permission" means please

kambien wrote:
An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its

2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

2 + 2 = 4
it was resolved and the outcome is 4

2 + -2 = 0
it was resolved and the outcome was nothing

Your examples agree with me - you've only resolved the ones that have an outcome.
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
What instructions in its entry lead you to not applying the -1S/T and still being resolved?

Cast the power on a dread, can you apply the -1 T? Is the power not resolved if you cannot apply that -1T?

Kambien - sorry, assumed context was clear.

you can then resolve the power, applying -1t unless told otherwise.

HAve you been told otherwise? Sir lynch thinks so, despite having no rules to support their assertion.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Cast the power on a dread, can you apply the -1 T? Is the power not resolved if you cannot apply that -1T?

There's a specific rule (dreads don't have a T to effect) that allows that to not be resolved.
There is no rule stopping the rest of it from being resolved.