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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Permissive rule set is correct.

They stack because of Page 2 modifiers, and the fact that you can cast enfeeble from two different psykers.

What the number of psykers has to do with anything?

 DeathReaper wrote:
5+2 does =7, except for Save values which clearly and explicitly work in reverse.

Stop ignoring the rules.

Still can't answer any of the questions I asked?

I'm not ignoring the rules, but if pg 2 trumps the rest of the brb, how does pg 2 tell you to do modifiers? 5+2=7 math & pg 2 agree. and pg 2 apparently (from your point of view) trumps the rest of the book. pg 2 says its 7, nothing on pg 19 shows it to do math differently, ergo 7. Now can you show RAW where the word improves negates math & pg 2 and allows for inverse math? nope. we can argue the word improve and that is HIWPI, but RAW and pg 91 does not use the word improve therefore 7. Or can we agree that the more specific rules dictate how the general math should function?

The math on Page 2 is the basis in which the rules were written.

Save values are the exception to the rule.

Please explain how the rules for psychic powers in any way supports your conclusions?

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

Yes. When you first cast it the power will be in effect. When you cast is second time, it still is in effect. Nothing changes. You need a rule that says that 'this power' or 'the power' in psychic power descriptions means individual instance of the power. There is no such rule.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

Yes. When you first cast it the power will be in effect. When you cast is second time, it still is in effect. Nothing changes. You need a rule that says that 'this power' or 'the power' in psychic power descriptions means individual instance of the power. There is no such rule.

A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more.than once each turn - even if the manifestation attempt is not successful.

I cast Enfeeble with Tervigon 1.
Tervigon 2 also rolled Enfeeble.

If you treat the 2 powers the same, the second Tervigon cannot even attempt to manifest it.
"this power" must reference the specific casting of the power, and not every attempt to layer the power. The latter would cause the two Tervigons to not cast the same power, even at different targets.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The math on Page 2 is the basis in which the rules were written.

Save values are the exception to the rule.

Please explain how the rules for psychic powers in any way supports your conclusions?

You are allowed to cast a psychic power on a target. You are then allowed to use a different psyker to cast a psychic power on the same unit.

so show your math for the exception. pg # please and don't say 19 we know its not there.
since pg 2 trumps all, can I stack stealth from IC-A and stealth from IC-B, with stealth (ruins)? because pg 2 math 4+1+1+1=1 but capped at 2+. They're different source of the same USR which makes them different USR's, and different USR's are cumulative right?

and as pg 418 says which you keep ignoring it's the same power, enfeeble from psyker A is the exact same as the enfeeble from psyker B, and the rules allow for different powers to stack. So as you need the rules so you know what math to use, we see from those other rules on pg 68 which you're ignoring that only different powers have permission to be cumulative. so the second one does not create a second modifier.

It's ok, you can admit you're wrong on this one.

rigeld2 wrote:

A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more.than once each turn - even if the manifestation attempt is not successful.

I cast Enfeeble with Tervigon 1.
Tervigon 2 also rolled Enfeeble.

If you treat the 2 powers the same, the second Tervigon cannot even attempt to manifest it.
"this power" must reference the specific casting of the power, and not every attempt to layer the power. The latter would cause the two Tervigons to not cast the same power, even at different targets.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. They are two different psykers, that rule doesn't affect them in any way.

However, you remind us again that if two instances of the same power are different, even one psyker can cast same power twice, as different instances of same power are not same!

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more.than once each turn - even if the manifestation attempt is not successful.

I cast Enfeeble with Tervigon 1.
Tervigon 2 also rolled Enfeeble.

If you treat the 2 powers the same, the second Tervigon cannot even attempt to manifest it.
"this power" must reference the specific casting of the power, and not every attempt to layer the power. The latter would cause the two Tervigons to not cast the same power, even at different targets.

What? That makes no sense whatsoever. They are two different psykers, that rule doesn't affect them in any way.

And 2 powers cast by different psykers are different...

However, you remind us again that if two instances of the same power are different, even one psyker can cast same power twice, as different instances of same power are not same!

2 powers cast by the same psyker are the same. 2 powers cast by different psykers are different.

@rigeld 2, pg 418 still says your wrong

sirlynchmob wrote:
so show your math for the exception. pg # please and don't say 19 we know its not there.

It is there, but you ignore it when I post it. Maybe this time you will understand it as I will go a little more in-depth.

"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+." (19)

It has been established that the lower the save the better it is and a higher value is worse. It also helps establish that improved means lower.

Under Focus Fire page 18 "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated." Worse = Higher, so the reverse of lower = better is true as well.

"A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+" Page 2

Better = lower. Improved = lower, and worse = higher.

Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.

Please do not ignore it this time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
so show your math for the exception. pg # please and don't say 19 we know its not there.

It is there, but you ignore it when I post it. Maybe this time you will understand it as I will go a little more in-depth.

"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+." (19)

It has been established that the lower the save the better it is and a higher value is worse. It also helps establish that improved means lower.

Under Focus Fire page 18 "Your opponent can only allocate Wounds to models with a cover save equal to or worse (i.e a higher value) than the value stated." Worse = Higher, so the reverse of lower = better is true as well.

"A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+" Page 2

Better = lower. Improved = lower, and worse = higher.

Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.

Please do not ignore it this time.

I'm still not but that doesn't override your pg 2 math either. and you forgot on pg 2 adding to characters can affect them negatively.

This is your assumption,
Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.
clearly a HIWPI argument.

and not RAW.

And again it just proves my point that: the rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, not the other way around. You agree rules trumps pg 2 math for armor saves, and disagree for psychic powers. Please pick one and stick with it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm still not but that doesn't override your pg 2 math either.

This is your assumption,
Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.
clearly a HIWPI argument.

and not RAW.

And again it just proves my point that: the rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, not the other way around. You agree rules trumps pg 2 math for armor saves, and disagree for psychic powers. Please pick one and stick with it.

1) It is not my assumption. The quotes prove that Increasing a save lowers its value. Not HIWPI, It is actual RAW if you do not ignore the quotes.

2) The rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, but the rules for saves specifically tell you how to increase armor saves, which is contrary to the basis in which the rules are written.

3) The rules for Psychic powers do not say anything to the contrary about page 2, so you have to follow the most basic order of operations.

4) I am picking one, I am following the RAW, which works one way for saves and the revers for everything else as per the exceptions for save values.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm still not but that doesn't override your pg 2 math either.

This is your assumption,
Increasing a save lowers its value, and a +1 is an increase, as a -1 is a decrease.
clearly a HIWPI argument.

and not RAW.

And again it just proves my point that: the rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, not the other way around. You agree rules trumps pg 2 math for armor saves, and disagree for psychic powers. Please pick one and stick with it.

1) It is not my assumption. The quotes prove that Increasing a save lowers its value. Not HIWPI, It is actual RAW if you do not ignore the quotes.

2) The rules give you the numbers and the formula to be used, but the rules for saves specifically tell you how to increase armor saves, which is contrary to the basis in which the rules are written.

3) The rules for Psychic powers do not say anything to the contrary about page 2, so you have to follow the most basic order of operations.

4) I am picking one, I am following the RAW, which works one way for saves and the revers for everything else as per the exceptions for save values.

1) pg 2 says you can affect characteristics negatively by adding to them. so it is still raw 5+2 =7 even for armor saves. Better or worse is irrelevant as pg 2 demonstrates how to do the math.

2) RAW for psychic powers says under resolving powers "different' & "cumulative" so basing the formula on the rules presented, we see that you only get the first modifier, not the second.

3) basic order of operation 4-1=3 you don't get anymore -1's from any more enfeeble after that to put into any equations.

/edit oh and what about stealth stacking? if we follow the vote here, can I stack them as well?

1) I have proven that save values are an exception to the rule.

2) you have not proven that your assertion is true.

3) basic order of operation 4-1-1=2 do not ignore Page 2

As for Stealth, It explicitly tells us that "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." (32) (Psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers).

 DeathReaper wrote:
1) I have proven that save values are an exception to the rule.

2) you have not proven that your assertion is true.

3) basic order of operation 4-1-1=2 do not ignore Page 2

As for Stealth, It explicitly tells us that "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." (32) (Psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers).

1 I agree, rules dictate math, otherwise basic order of operation 5+2=7.

2) I have, you ignore it.

3) see 2, you need to find permission for the same power to stack otherwise you only get the (-1) not the second. Because only different has permission to stack, same does not.

stealth, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative. here they state by your definition of different, they stack. Plus with your idea of 3 they stack. And they're not the same special rule, you have "stealth" and "stealth (ruins)"

You still don't see how your using pg 2 differently depending on the outcome you want.

That part about stealth would be true if the stealth rule did not state "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being I point better than normal." (42)

Does the unit contain "at least one model with this special rule" If yes then cover is 1 point better.

If 5 models have Stealth does the unit contain "at least one model with this special rule" If yes then cover is 1 point better.

So Stealth, by virtue of the Stealth rule, does not stack.

To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:
[
And 2 powers cast by different psykers are different...

2 powers cast by the same psyker are the same. 2 powers cast by different psykers are different.

Based on what? This is completely made up, with no basis on absolutely anything in the rules. This is getting really ludicrous.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And 2 powers cast by different psykers are different...

2 powers cast by the same psyker are the same. 2 powers cast by different psykers are different.

Based on what? This is completely made up, with no basis on absolutely anything in the rules. This is getting really ludicrous.

If 2 powers cast by different psykers are the same, then a Tervigon that attempts to cast Enfeeble blocks all other Psykers from attempting to cast Enfeeble.
Because a psyker cannot cast the same power twice.

rigeld2 wrote:

If 2 powers cast by different psykers are the same, then a Tervigon that attempts to cast Enfeeble blocks all other Psykers from attempting to cast Enfeeble.
Because a psyker cannot cast the same power twice.

You are not making any sense. Yes, a psyker may not cast same power multiple times, but there is nothing forbidding two different psykers casting a same power.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

If 2 powers cast by different psykers are the same, then a Tervigon that attempts to cast Enfeeble blocks all other Psykers from attempting to cast Enfeeble.
Because a psyker cannot cast the same power twice.

You are not making any sense. Yes, a psyker may not cast same power multiple times, but there is nothing forbidding two different psykers casting a same power.

You are attempting to treat 2 powers cast from different psykers as the same power on resolution, yes?

Why is it the same power then, but different when cast?

rigeld2 wrote:

You are attempting to treat 2 powers cast from different psykers as the same power on resolution, yes?

Why is it the same power then, but different when cast?

It is not different power, the psykers are different!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To make this absolutely clear to Rigeld2:
There is Psyker 1 and Psyker 2 and powers A and B.

All these are legal:

Psyker 1 casting A and B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting B

Psyker 1 casting A, Psyker 2 casting A


This is not:
Psyker 1 casting A and A

Capiche?

And who is casting what has absolutely nothing to do with stacking.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)

Well, since these phrases have in fact been cited throughout this and other threads, I see no reason not to quote them (seeing as your BRB is apparently missing pages by your own admission).

Pg. 68, last paragraph:

Maledictions are manifested at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase. They weaken the Pysker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules. Maledictions target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn. Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonus and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

Pg. 419, Enfeeble:

Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

Not only does Enfeeble lack distinct verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative with multiple uses, Enfeeble specifically tells us that "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ... ". So as long as the target unit is under the effects of Enfeeble, that unit suffers the penalties noted under the power's rules. One Enfeeble or twelve Enfeebles, the effects of being Enfeebled will always be the same, a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness while treating all terrain as difficult terrain. And as long as a targeted unit is "Enfeebled", it will remain "Enfeebled" until the end of the effected player's turn, at which point the casting player can re-manifest Enfeeble on the same target unit or a different target unit during their own movement phase.

If you feel this is incorrect, please feel free to the cite and quote rules supporting your point of view (that's part of the forum's tenets, by the way). And if your BRB does not include the actual rules we are discussing, you might want to replace your BRB with one that does.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)

Well, since these phrases have in fact been cited throughout this and other threads, I see no reason not to quote them (seeing as your BRB is apparently missing pages by your own admission).

Pg. 68, last paragraph:

Maledictions are manifested at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase. They weaken the Pysker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules. Maledictions target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn. Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonus and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

Pg. 419, Enfeeble:

Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

Not only does Enfeeble lack distinct verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative with multiple uses, Enfeeble specifically tells us that "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ... ". So as long as the target unit is under the effects of Enfeeble, that unit suffers the penalties noted under the power's rules. One Enfeeble or twelve Enfeebles, the effects of being Enfeebled will always be the same, a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness while treating all terrain as difficult terrain. And as long as a targeted unit is "Enfeebled", it will remain "Enfeebled" until the end of the effected player's turn, at which point the casting player can re-manifest Enfeeble on the same target unit or a different target unit during their own movement phase.

If you feel this is incorrect, please feel free to the cite and quote rules supporting your point of view (that's part of the forum's tenets, by the way). And if your BRB does not include the actual rules we are discussing, you might want to replace your BRB with one that does.

SJ

The Nurgle Chaos Marine power Gift of Contagion is a malediction that DOES have distinct verbiage allowing multiple castings of the same power to stack. What this suggests is that, normally, multiple castings of the same power (i.e., Enfeeble) do not stack with one another because they lack this distinct verbiage.

Sir Lynch - yes, it is a permissive ruleset.
I have permission to use maths, from page 2, and this follows usual rules for mathematics unless told otherwise (saves, which you still refuse to understand and pay attention to the rules telling you this, that DR patiently explained) therefore UNLESS and UNTIL you can find A RESTRICTION then 4-1-1 = 2 .

Find that restriction. NOt your made up requirement for "permission to stack", which is a lie created by you in order to support your argument, but an actual rule. Page, para.

Further refusal for you to accept the basic of mathematics will be considered your concession of the point, and your argument will be considered just a houserule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and apparently we cant use subtraction? Lol. +(-1) . Done. As is your argument.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
To bad Enfeeble does not include the verbiage "each additional use will cause ... ". It is fortunate, however, that the BRB does tell us such verbiage is required for the effects of multiple applications of Enfeeble to be cumulative, just like every other rule in the game that changes how the general rules work.

Citation required.

BRB, pages 68 and 419.

Yeah, those phrases don't exist in my copy of the BRB.
Could you quote them? (part of citing)

Well, since these phrases have in fact been cited throughout this and other threads, I see no reason not to quote them (seeing as your BRB is apparently missing pages by your own admission).

Pg. 68, last paragraph:

Maledictions are manifested at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase. They weaken the Pysker's enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules. Maledictions target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn. Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonus and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

Pg. 419, Enfeeble:

Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

Not only does Enfeeble lack distinct verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative with multiple uses, Enfeeble specifically tells us that "Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers ... ". So as long as the target unit is under the effects of Enfeeble, that unit suffers the penalties noted under the power's rules. One Enfeeble or twelve Enfeebles, the effects of being Enfeebled will always be the same, a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness while treating all terrain as difficult terrain. And as long as a targeted unit is "Enfeebled", it will remain "Enfeebled" until the end of the effected player's turn, at which point the casting player can re-manifest Enfeeble on the same target unit or a different target unit during their own movement phase.

If you feel this is incorrect, please feel free to the cite and quote rules supporting your point of view (that's part of the forum's tenets, by the way). And if your BRB does not include the actual rules we are discussing, you might want to replace your BRB with one that does.

SJ

So in fact, there is no phrase as you suggested there was. The BRB does not actually say that there is some verbiage that would be required for multiple applications of Enfeebled to be cumulative. Thanks for proving that you were incorrect in your assertion.

We've been down this road before Rigeld, with the same parroting of non-rules previously

They keep committing the fallacy of assuming the permission to do X is restriction on doing X'. This isnt true, but is essentially the basis of their argument. no matter how many times it can be shown to be untrue, it keeps getting repeated as if it has some merit.

Nos, so you just ignore the fact that the penalties are not direct result of successful cast, but the result of the power being in effect?

Also, I'm still waiting your explanation why Enfeeble would stack but Dominate doesn't.