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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

rigeld2 wrote:
Your examples agree with me - you've only resolved the ones that have an outcome.

No , only the first example agrees with you , its the only one with no outcome . If you put that in game terms you would be stuck , the game would never end and never move forward otherwise it will indeed become resolved

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.

at no point are you forbidden from resovoling sometihng , in fact you HAVE to resolve before you can cont. or else you can't cont.

rigeld2 wrote:
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

yes , take the instructions and then resolve. applying -1 T indescriminatly is not resolving either .

kambien wrote:
No , only the first example agrees with you , its the only one with no outcome . If you put that in game terms you would be stuck , the game would never end and never move forward otherwise it will indeed become resolved

... What? To be resolved, you must have an outcome. That outcome is determined by the formula. If you follow the formula (the rules in the power) you've resolved it. If not, you haven't.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.

at no point are you forbidden from resovoling sometihng , in fact you HAVE to resolve before you can cont. or else you can't cont.

I successfully Deny the Witch no your power. You are not permitted to resolve that power according to its instructions now.

rigeld2 wrote:
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

yes , take the instructions and then resolve. applying -1 T indescriminatly is not resolving either .

Where did I say indiscriminately?

rigeld2 wrote:
What instructions in its entry lead you to not applying the -1S/T and still being resolved?

Simple
Enfeeble is cast on a devilfish APC that has sensor spines
You cannot apply -1 T , it has no toughness
the power is resolved and has no effect on the unit

You forgot the little addition of "because of an additional exceptional rule". Which, by the way, doesn't exist in the Enfeeble instructions on how to resolve the power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

I'm not touching that one with a barge poll, all I am putting forward is that resolving the power and applying the effect are not the same. In general resolving a power causes the application of all of the effects of the rule but not always, that's all I'm putting out there.

I don't agree that the use of "different" in the psyker rules is just a reminder but there is nothing to say that powers don't stack RAW.
Out of interest, in that old debate why was Dominate considered not to stack? I'm just looking at it again and wondering why it doesn't apply, as "this power" must mean this casting right?

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually it's the absence of a resolution - the power was not resolved because it was not allowed to

kambien wrote:
An absence of a resolution means there is no outcome. In layman terms its
2 + 2 =
That is not resolved

rigeld2 wrote:
Your examples agree with me - you've only resolved the ones that have an outcome.

kambien wrote:
No , only the first example agrees with you , its the only one with no outcome . If you put that in game terms you would be stuck , the game would never end and never move forward otherwise it will indeed become resolved

rigeld2 wrote:
... What? To be resolved, you must have an outcome.

I've been saying this the entire time , i keep asking if you agree with me on this and you say no.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you follow the formula (the rules in the power) you've resolved it. If not, you haven't.

Incorrect , it is all applicable rules , not just the ones in the power.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're forbidden from resolving something, it has no outcome. Which is what was said.

at no point are you forbidden from resovoling sometihng , in fact you HAVE to resolve before you can cont. or else you can't cont.

rigeld2 wrote:
I successfully Deny the Witch no your power. You are not permitted to resolve that power according to its instructions now.

You are denying the witch after you already failed the roll to deny the witch and we are at the resolve the power step ?

rigeld2 wrote:
Note where in the process resolution happens - after DtW. Per the actual rules, you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

yes , take the instructions and then resolve. applying -1 T indescriminatly is not resolving either .

rigeld2 wrote:
Where did I say indiscriminately?

never said you did

rigeld2 wrote:
What instructions in its entry lead you to not applying the -1S/T and still being resolved?

Simple
Enfeeble is cast on a devilfish APC that has sensor spines
You cannot apply -1 T , it has no toughness
the power is resolved and has no effect on the unit

rigeld2 wrote:
You forgot the little addition of "because of an additional exceptional rule". Which, by the way, doesn't exist in the Enfeeble instructions on how to resolve the power.

There doesn't need to be "because of a addictional exceptional rule" because resolving covers that.

I came across something yesterday that changed my mind about this debate. I was leaning on the side of "different" meaning that a different caster, casting the same power on the same unit, would stack.

In the Chaos Space Marine codex, the Nurgle power Gift of Contagion clarifies that the effects of repeated castings of this power can stack. My logic is that there would be no need to allow for repeated castings of this power to stack if this was the rule already. Thus, "different" means that different maledictions stack - i.e., the effects of Enfeeble stack with Gift of Contagion, dropping Str by -2, etc.

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.

this is your idea of a rule?
from page 1 of this thread:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

"You have permission to stack, and no restriction. They stack "

funny where is your page number or paragraph?

where is this permission to stack you keep claiming but isn't in the BRB?

I know you keep failing to comprehend this for whatever reason. Yes, you can resolve multiple enfeebles, you do not have permission for them to stack. ergo no matter how many times a unit is enfeebled it's just the -1. as the results are non cumulative because enfeeble = enfeeble they are not different (pg 68)

As you can not cite permission for stacking trying to find rules to the contrary is irrelevant. or can you find a rule that says I can't flip the table so all your models fall onto the floor and I win as you have no models on the table?

Sir lynch, I guess you review their use of maths, approximate on page two, and note that x-1 -1 does iindeed result in x-2

You have permission to resolve the power. Your made up rule means you do not resolve the power

ANd, just to reiterate, NONE OF YOUR POSTS contained a single rule that shows a restriction on stacking, nor does it show a requirement exists for a specific rule to allow basic maths, which we know the rulebook uses, to operate

In short, the rulebook uses basic axiomatic maths. Thus, by default 1+1 does equal 2, whereas you claim you need a specific rule allowing this basic maths to operate.

Given you cannot provide such a rule, your concession is considered proffered and accepted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir lynch, I guess you review their use of maths, approximate on page two, and note that x-1 -1 does iindeed result in x-2

You have permission to resolve the power. Your made up rule means you do not resolve the power

ANd, just to reiterate, NONE OF YOUR POSTS contained a single rule that shows a restriction on stacking, nor does it show a requirement exists for a specific rule to allow basic maths, which we know the rulebook uses, to operate

In short, the rulebook uses basic axiomatic maths. Thus, by default 1+1 does equal 2, whereas you claim you need a specific rule allowing this basic maths to operate.

Given you cannot provide such a rule, your concession is considered proffered and accepted.

blah blah blah, you still need permission for x-1 to become x-2, you don't have any.

so you keep insisting on rules that say you can't do something when you never were given specific permission to do it.

you're quoting math? wow, and you thought quoting a similar rule in a different section was not applicable.

you have refuted none of my rules that support my claim, and have yet to provide any to show that similar psychic maledictions stack.

so I guess you're argument goes "I have no rules but I claim my warped idea is RAW" gotcha. I accept your concession.

sirlynchmob wrote:
blah blah blah, you still need permission for x-1 to become x-2, you don't have any.

Incorrect.

Page 2 outlines how math works in 40K.

You have permission to cast enfeeble on a unit.

You also have permission to cast enfeeble, from a different psyker, on the same unit.

There is the permission.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
blah blah blah, you still need permission for x-1 to become x-2, you don't have any.

Incorrect.

Page 2 outlines how math works in 40K.

You have permission to cast enfeeble on a unit.

You also have permission to cast enfeeble, from a different psyker, on the same unit.

There is the permission.

True, stacking is a naturally occuring thing with maths. You use maths, you get a stacking effect.
but apparently:
4-1-1 = 3
And not 2, but there hasn't been a decent reason as to why yet.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have permission to resolve the power.

as pointed out multiple times in this thread , permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to stack

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have permission to resolve the power.

as pointed out multiple times in this thread , permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to stack

Right, that comes from basic math, and as the 40k rules follow basic math then we know that 4-1-1=2

Sirllynch - so according to you you need permission for (X-1)-1 = X-2? Page 2 shows that they use basic axiomatic maths, so this permission has been given

You still have no rules argument that actually creates this mythical requirement for 1+1 to equal 2 only when specifically allowed

Thanks for demonstrating your basic misunderstanding of the rules, as it shows arguing will be pointless - given you deny that 4-1-1 is 2, there can be no common ground.

I'm sure someone has already brought up the corresponding texts on page 32 regarding special rules...

Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative

This is a good example of GW's 'Different', and how the 'No' crowd read it really. I wouldn't say it is absolute, but its hard to fault the logic.

Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative

[edit] To clarify, for people who read the second quote as a restriction like the first, being able to cast the power has no bearing - the second quote is stated in the Resolving section.

 Nem wrote:
I'm sure someone has already brought up the corresponding texts on page 32 regarding special rules...

Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative

This is a good example of GW's 'Different', and how the 'No' crowd read it really. I wouldn't say it is absolute, but its hard to fault the logic.

Why bring up special rules when the wording is not the same? It's been addressed - it's irrelevant.

Some people keep equating resolving the power with applying the effect. I think this is a mistake. Powers tend to say 'while this power is in effect..." If we understand this to mean the power in general, instead of individual instances of that power, the same powers would indeed not stack. This way the power is resolved making the power being in effect, however power is 'in effect' regardless of whether you have one or seven instances of it in effect, so multiple castings have no further impact.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sirllynch - so according to you you need permission for (X-1)-1 = X-2? Page 2 shows that they use basic axiomatic maths, so this permission has been given

You still have no rules argument that actually creates this mythical requirement for 1+1 to equal 2 only when specifically allowed

Thanks for demonstrating your basic misunderstanding of the rules, as it shows arguing will be pointless - given you deny that 4-1-1 is 2, there can be no common ground.

and if the standard set by USR's is irrelevant, than so is your "because math" argument.

and because math 5+2=7 right?

you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

you have permission for 2 different powers with a -1 effect to go 4-1-1=2 as clearly spelled out on pg 68, and using USR's as supporting evidence. What do you think that paragraph on pg 68 means? why is it in there? If what you claim is true, that paragraph would not be needed, but it's there. Oh ya, I forget you want to ignore that rule because it shows you're wrong.

Is English, your second langauge? You need to quite projecting your faulty logic onto me.
"You still have no rules argument that actually creates this mythical requirement for 1+1 to equal 2 only when specifically allowed" permissive rule set remember? you seem to keep forgetting that part.

whats next you'll use an argument for the law of large numbers and statistics to say that if you roll 40 dice and need 5's to hit, you can only ever hit 7 times. because math?

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

"No it doesn't." what? What doesn't?

The rules don't define that improving a save means lowering it? Page 19.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

Adding to a save makes it lower, by the rules.Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
you know area terrain, + going to ground = 7.

You've brought this up before, every time ignoring that there are rules dictating how to improve saves.

Why you ignore basic math, or the part on pg 2 that says modifiers can affect characteristics positively or negatively. 5+2=7 is a negative modification. What kind of new math are you trying to pull? where does area terrain say g2g there is supposed to improve the roll? oh ya it doesn't. so were left with basic math 5+2=7

This is getting ridiculous.

This same topic has come up, run 12 pages, and been locked several times. Now we have people throwing out established RAW from other mechanics. This is trolling and it's unproductive. If you really think GTG in area terrain makes your saves worse, you should not be taking part in this rules forum.

There are no actual rules as written prohibiting maledictions from being cumulative. If you disagree, discuss it with your opponent or TO. Over 20 combined pages on this topic haven't swayed many people's opinions, continuing with these insane tangents won't shed any new light on the situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

"No it doesn't." what? What doesn't?

The rules don't define that improving a save means lowering it? Page 19.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

Adding to a save makes it lower, by the rules.Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

Take your own advice.

you notice it uses the word increase in your example. G2G in area terrain does not. you're assuming it does and that is not RAW. Just like you're assuming enfeeble stacks with itself, and based on the entire rule section of maledictions (that you choose to ignore saying it's irrelevant) you're wrong. Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not ignoring basic math. The actual rules say that improving cover saves is defined as a +#, and that lower is better.

No it doesn't. and just because a lower armor save is better does not override the fact that modifiers can negatively affect it by adding to it. check pg 2 again under modifiers.

"No it doesn't." what? What doesn't?

The rules don't define that improving a save means lowering it? Page 19.

Page 19 wrote:Some models gain additional benefits from rules that may increase any of their saves by +1 or +2 or even more. However, no save (armour, cover or invulnerable) can ever be improved beyond 2+. Regardless of what is giving the model its save,a roll of 1 always fails.

Adding to a save makes it lower, by the rules.Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

Take your own advice.

you notice it uses the word increase in your example. G2G in area terrain does not. you're assuming it does and that is not RAW. Just like you're assuming enfeeble stacks with itself, and based on the entire rule section of maledictions (that you choose to ignore saying it's irrelevant) you're wrong. Your example is flawed, stop hanging on it.

Page 91 wrote:Models that Go to Ground in area terrain receive +2 to their cover save, rather than +1.

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

rigeld2 wrote:

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

read page 2 again, your first sentence it wrong.

you'll also note the lack of the word improve or increase on pg 91.

Wow. Just wow. I voted no. I baffled as to why different has any other meaning than what we all know it to be.

Even the Oxford dictionary doesn't have a problem. Different or distinct from something already mentioned.

If I mention to use enfeeble, then my buddy mention the spell enfeeble, referencing the same spell card how are they different?

If it was mention in the brb that manifested by different psyker's are cumulative I'd see no problem. It doesn't say that so still no.

sirlynchmob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

We know from the above quote that increase == +number. This is exactly what the area terrain rule I cited uses.

I'm not the one citing an example as failing math and ignoring actual rules when doing so.

read page 2 again, your first sentence it wrong.

you'll also note the lack of the word improve or increase on pg 91.

Are you ignoring 19? Of course you are - its proving your statements incorrect.

I'd suggest avoiding debate with sir lynch, given they can only cling to that position by ignoring defined rules and throwing insults. It's nit productive to argue with someone that states 4-1-1 is 3

We can do without the digs and squabbling please chaps, no need to be rude to someone who doesn't agree with you.