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.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

Congratulations nos, you are now both rigeld AND Deathreaper. I'd better be careful though. You might also be me...

He could be anyone of us...
And we'd never know...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The rules do not need to say "same powers do not stack" the rules also don't say "don't knock all your opponents models to the floor" If the rules don't say you can, then you can't.

It is a good thing that the rules about modifiers give permission.

You obviously have no grasp of how a permissive rule set works.

To say that Nos has no grasp on the rules is incorrect in so many ways...

you can only use math as dictated by the rules, not the other way around. Because it is also self evident that 5+2=7. Put it into any calculator and check.

You are ignoring the part about Save values working in reverse to regular math. Don't.

They give you permission on how to work the numbers you are given by the rules in question. The rules only give you a -1 s/t, it never gives the second for you to use for a modifier.

Page 2 actually includes all modifiers.

Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

Really? Did you seriously just type that...

you keep saying that, but show the rule that allows for this reverse math that overrides pg 2. it just says lower is better, not use funny math instead of the math present on pg 2 and how to handle modifiers. So if you want to say math dictates rules, than stick to that story. Don't say it's rule first than math for armor saves, than try to say math first than rules for psychic powers.

I have 7 rules that support my position, and you one (which you only think grants something it doesn't). Fine we'll split the different RAI: enfeeble doesn't stack with enfeeble.

I have quoted the rules that save values operate in reverse In this very thread.

In the following post (and others).
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/527208.page#5788042


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Nos is this you? Nice of you to come to his/yours defense

Congratulations nos, you are now both rigeld AND Deathreaper. I'd better be careful though. You might also be me...

Nos may be Alpharius as well...

 DeathReaper wrote:

Page 2 actually includes all modifiers.

P2 tells you how to handle modifiers, the rules give you the values to use, and how to use them.
in and of itself it grants no permission for anything.

So until you can prove how you get a second enfeeble modifiers, you don't have one to use on pg 2.

SO lets focus here a second, since RAW is "unclear" would you and/or nos agree that the intent from all the rules in the appropriate section is that enfeeble will not stack with itself?

P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

If you ignore that, then there can be no further debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

See armour saves where discussing said rules are not, however.

Bonuses reducing some values while listing them at +1 are not basic rules of math.

editing to add:
Your premise is entirely false, no matter how valid the rest is.

The easy out is stating that the +1 is to the roll, but that is not what the rules state.

 DeathReaper wrote:
P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

If you ignore that, then there can be no further debate.

And if and only if you ignore everything written under psychic powers and psychers then your math argument works.

It's funny how when I show how 5+2=7, you're quick to jump to the rules to look it up under the proper section. Yet when it comes to psychic powers, you are afraid to even look at those pages.

I agree there is no debate as you are totally wrong and just can't accept it, nor even comment on what RAI could possible be.

Even in the poll you can't even reach a supreme court ruling at 53% so RAW is at best inconclusive. But if all you have is pg 2, and nothing from the actual section of psychic stuff, then I can only conclude you are wrong.

General permission for modifiers to be applied in a cumulative fashion is given. That's fine and dandy for modifiers. The effects and abilities still need to stack for those modifiers to be applied.

In the psychic powers section only of different powers are permitted to stack. This disrupts any notion that there is some kind of unstated default stacking ability of these powers.

The idea that 'basic math' supports stacking is laughable. Stacking is using basic addition/subtraction. Saying 'basic math says they stack therefore they stack' is exactly the same as saying 'stacking says they stack therefore they stack' ...

So what are different powers? Any power by a different name is a different power. This is defined in the common reading of "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn..." Page 67 BRB
...unless anyone wants to claim every psyker can use enfeeble several times a turn til he runs out of warp charges because each use is a 'different' power. It seems quite clear powers of the same name are not different.

Why is this still being argued?

Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

 jifel wrote:
Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

You've got the question backwards. Where does it say they are allowed to stack? Permissive rule set and all...

 Abandon wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

You've got the question backwards. Where does it say they are allowed to stack? Permissive rule set and all...

Maybe this is obvious and I'm missing this. Where is it said that 40k is a Permissive ruleset? Not trying to be aggressive, I'm just genuinely curious because it gets brought up a lot.

It doesn't. Games are written with permission - you must have permission to do something or you cannot do it. Laws, otoh, are restrictive - you can do anything you want as long as you don't break the rules.

 Happyjew wrote:
It doesn't. Games are written with permission - you must have permission to do something or you cannot do it. Laws, otoh, are restrictive - you can do anything you want as long as you don't break the rules.

Hm. Well I think it does stack, here's my reasoning:

1. Psykers are allowed to cast enfeeble.
2. Two different psykers are both allowed to cast enfeeble.
3. These psykers may target any unit in range.
4. It is never said that this may not be the same unit.
5. Psykers are given permission to resolve the power they cast.
6. It is never said that they can't both resolve on the same unit.

It is said that permissive rulesets mean that we must have permission or it can't be done. Psykers have permission to cast and resolve powers. Whether or not the target has already had the same power resolved on it, doesn't change the fact that the psyker has permission to cast/resolve the power.

However, it is clear based on the poll that the community is split with no significant majority. The BRB says that when we have a rules conflict, to try to resolve it among our selves. One reccomendation is to look at similar rules. The best example I can think of is the Psychic power Hammerhand from Codex GK. When this power, which like Enfeeble is a 1 modifier to a base stat (strength, even if in the opposite direction [+ instead of -]) is cast it is given specific permission to stack if cast more than once.

The power "enfeeble" is given permission to be cast. I have permission for all my psykers to cast and resolve it if they have it. No where is that permission revoked even if the unit has already been hit by enfeeble. Therefore, I have permission to cast it. If anyone can dispute the above, I encourage you to do so in a rational polite manner. What step of this am I not allowed to do via a permissive ruleset? I see permission to do so, and that permission is unchanged by whether the target is already suffering enfeeble.

A second question: If I cast objuration Mechanicus twice on a rhino, do you think it would only suffer a single haywire hit?

Personally, I have no side in this. Right now I am impartial. I will most likely remain so until GW releases an FAQ covering this, or it pops up enough in games at my local store to warrant determination. As it stands dakka is the only place that I have seen this come up.

 jifel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Where does it say that psychic powers that aren't different aren't allowed to stack?

You've got the question backwards. Where does it say they are allowed to stack? Permissive rule set and all...

Maybe this is obvious and I'm missing this. Where is it said that 40k is a Permissive ruleset? Not trying to be aggressive, I'm just genuinely curious because it gets brought up a lot.

It is necessary to make the rules actually work and is the same in most every game. For example there is no rule that expressly forbids you from picking up you models and placing them where ever you feel like when ever you feel like doing so. If the rules were not treated as a permissive rule set you could do this and would quickly find the game unplayable.

Instead treating this as a permissive rule set means the models can only move as they specify and the game can proceed in an orderly and functional fashion.

 Abandon wrote:

It is necessary to make the rules actually work and is the same in most every game. For example there is no rule that expressly forbids you from picking up you models and placing them where ever you feel like when ever you feel like doing so. If the rules were not treated as a permissive rule set you could do this and would quickly find the game unplayable.

Instead treating this as a permissive rule set means the models can only move as they specify and the game can proceed in an orderly and functional fashion.

Fair enough. Even then, see my post above, I believe I do have that permission to cast it twice.

Just an FYI, but Hammerhand is not cumulative. Nowhere in the GK codex is permission given to Hammerhand to stack; permission was only given in the last set of 5th Ed FAQs that where replaced by the current set of 6th Ed FAQs which just so happen to not include permission to stack. For reference, look at Might of Titan, which does contain verbiage allowing it to stack specifically with Hammerhand.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just an FYI, but Hammerhand is not cumulative. Nowhere in the GK codex is permission given to Hammerhand to stack; permission was only given in the last set of 5th Ed FAQs that where replaced by the current set of 6th Ed FAQs which just so happen to not include permission to stack. For reference, look at Might of Titan, which does contain verbiage allowing it to stack specifically with Hammerhand.

SJ

Wait, the 6th edition FAQs changed it to no longer being able to stack? That is news to me.

The permission for Hammerhand to stack with itself was present in the 5th edition GK FAQ. With the new FAQs, the question regarding it has been dropped.

 Happyjew wrote:
The permission for Hammerhand to stack with itself was present in the 5th edition GK FAQ. With the new FAQs, the question regarding it has been dropped.

I would assume then that it still stacks... thats a very interesting, if separate, question though. What happens when an FAQ is removed without a separate FAQ supporting/changing its ruling? I would be inclined to play Hammerhand as stacking still however.

 kirsanth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
P2 establishes the basic rules of math are, in fact, in use.

See armour saves where discussing said rules are not, however.

And as cited, save values work in reverse to the norm.

I have cited this many times, do not ignore it and you see that save values work in reverse to the norm.

Bonuses reducing some values while listing them at +1 are not basic rules of math.

Which is all good as far as the rules are concerned, because of the previous citations.

editing to add:
Your premise is entirely false, no matter how valid the rest is.

The premise is not false, unless you ignore the quotes I have posted that show that save values are the exception to the rule.

sirlynchmob wrote:
And if and only if you ignore everything written under psychic powers and psychers then your math argument works.

It's funny how when I show how 5+2=7, you're quick to jump to the rules to look it up under the proper section. Yet when it comes to psychic powers, you are afraid to even look at those pages.

Yea, stop ignoring the rules about save values.

I agree there is no debate as you are totally wrong and just can't accept it, nor even comment on what RAI could possible be.

Even in the poll you can't even reach a supreme court ruling at 53% so RAW is at best inconclusive. But if all you have is pg 2, and nothing from the actual section of psychic stuff, then I can only conclude you are wrong.

I am only "totally wrong" if you ignore how Page 2 handles math...

The Psychic powers section does not contradict Page 2, so all rules in both sections apply...

"I would assume then that it still stacks... thats a very interesting, if separate, question though. What happens when an FAQ is removed without a separate FAQ supporting/changing its ruling? I would be inclined to play Hammerhand as stacking still however."

Go ahead and play however you want but don't complain if your opponents call you on your obvious disregard for the current rules. By your way of thinking it would be okay to use outdated rules from previous editions... That's exactly what you are advocating.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"I would assume then that it still stacks... thats a very interesting, if separate, question though. What happens when an FAQ is removed without a separate FAQ supporting/changing its ruling? I would be inclined to play Hammerhand as stacking still however."

Go ahead and play however you want but don't complain if your opponents call you on your obvious disregard for the current rules. By your way of thinking it would be okay to use outdated rules from previous editions... That's exactly what you are advocating.

I'm not advocating playing by different rules, because I am talking about the Grey Knights codex that is used in this current edition, and the rules within. But, is it right to say that they don't stack, when there is nothing to say they don't? Either way, this is a question for a separate topic. And that was a bit aggressive of a response, I'm asking genuine questions here not attacking anyone, not to mention the fact that I don't play GK.

@DR

First rules then math

DR:I am only "totally wrong" if you ignore how Page 2 handles math...

The Psychic powers section does not contradict Page 2, so all rules in both sections apply...

Rules state you start with base #, first enfeeble is cast, OK -1 s/t

Second enfeeble is cast, Is the second one different from the first? NO, what do the rules say happens? nothing, ergo nothing happens. Only different powers have permission to stack.

pg 2, math time, we have a 4 and a -1 =3


I'm not ignoring pg 2, I'm doing it at the proper time with the proper numbers as supported by the rules.

 jifel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It is necessary to make the rules actually work and is the same in most every game. For example there is no rule that expressly forbids you from picking up you models and placing them where ever you feel like when ever you feel like doing so. If the rules were not treated as a permissive rule set you could do this and would quickly find the game unplayable.

Instead treating this as a permissive rule set means the models can only move as they specify and the game can proceed in an orderly and functional fashion.

Fair enough. Even then, see my post above, I believe I do have that permission to cast it twice.

Yes you have permission to resolve both powers. That does not mean those powers are cumulative. If they are the 'same' power, they are not and both resolve with no further net result than one power would have achieved.

Powers can indeed resolve without effect. If you use enfeeble on a Rhino it resolves but nothing happens. If you use two enfeebles on infantry they both resolve but have no further effect beyond the first. Not sure how you are correlating stacking/non-stacking with resolved/non-resolved. All powers resolve either way the question being do they resolve in a cumulative manor so as to create greater effect by adding more of the same?

 Abandon wrote:

 jifel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

It is necessary to make the rules actually work and is the same in most every game. For example there is no rule that expressly forbids you from picking up you models and placing them where ever you feel like when ever you feel like doing so. If the rules were not treated as a permissive rule set you could do this and would quickly find the game unplayable.

Instead treating this as a permissive rule set means the models can only move as they specify and the game can proceed in an orderly and functional fashion.

Fair enough. Even then, see my post above, I believe I do have that permission to cast it twice.

Yes you have permission to resolve both powers. That does not mean those powers are cumulative. If they are the 'same' power, they are not and both resolve with no further net result than one power would have achieved.

Powers can indeed resolve without effect. If you use enfeeble on a Rhino it resolves but nothing happens. If you use two enfeebles on infantry they both resolve but have no further effect beyond the first. Not sure how you are correlating stacking/non-stacking with resolved/non-resolved. All powers resolve either way the question being do they resolve in a cumulative manor so as to create greater effect by adding more of the same?

If they both hit the targeted unit, and are resolved, so how could the results not apply? If they don't stack, then the powers aren't being resolved, which goes against the rules.
Just to clarify the above though, are you against all maledictions stacking, due to the rules of the BRB, or are you against Enfeeble stacking because of its specific wording?

P.S. Rhinos are affected by Enfeeble, and treat their next turn as moving in difficult terrain.

P.S.S. You didn't answer my other question, do you think two Objuration Mechanicus being resolved on a vehicle would generate one or two Haywire hits?

@sirlynchmob

The rules don't actually give the result you are arguing for. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. Apparently, no matter how carefully or simply this is explained you still don't comprehend that fact.

Therefore, since you do not comprehend this, There can be no debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:
@sirlynchmob

The rules don't actually give the result you are arguing for. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. Apparently, no matter how carefully or simply this is explained you still don't comprehend that fact.

Therefore, since you do not comprehend this, There can be no debate.

Then by all means, show permission for how the same malediction can stack. Remembering first rules, then math.

this is where you & nos fail at permissive rules, and are just wrong.

by omission as they do NOT say "same powers stack" ergo they don't. Just like they do NOT say "do not hit your opponent over the head and kick him in the shins" or do we need a rule for that as well?

If you could quote any rules from the psychic powers then there wouldn't be as much of a debate. but alas, the only way your interpretation works is to ignore all rules from the psychic powers section.

Different powers stack, and by omission same powers do not. If you don't want to see this as RAW, it is clearly RAI. either way same powers do NOT stack.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
@sirlynchmob

The rules don't actually give the result you are arguing for. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. Apparently, no matter how carefully or simply this is explained you still don't comprehend that fact.

Therefore, since you do not comprehend this, There can be no debate.

Then by all means, show permission for how the same malediction can stack. Remembering first rules, then math.

this is where you & nos fail at permissive rules, and are just wrong.

by omission as they do NOT say "same powers stack" ergo they don't. Just like they do NOT say "do not hit your opponent over the head and kick him in the shins" or do we need a rule for that as well?

If you could quote any rules from the psychic powers then there wouldn't be as much of a debate. but alas, the only way your interpretation works is to ignore all rules from the psychic powers section.

Different powers stack, and by omission same powers do not. If you don't want to see this as RAW, it is clearly RAI. either way same powers do NOT stack.

1. I would say that the RAI is not clear either.
2. Psychic powers are given permission to be cast and resolved. Because I have permission to resolve, I don't need written permission for them to stack. You need to find where it says they can't.

Two psykers cast the same power, and resolve it if it is on different targets. How is it any different from resolving it twice on the same unit? Simply resolve one, based on the units current stats. Then resolve the second, based on whatever the units current stats are.

 jifel wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
@sirlynchmob

The rules don't actually give the result you are arguing for. They do NOT say "same powers do not stack", which is your claim. Apparently, no matter how carefully or simply this is explained you still don't comprehend that fact.

Therefore, since you do not comprehend this, There can be no debate.

Then by all means, show permission for how the same malediction can stack. Remembering first rules, then math.

this is where you & nos fail at permissive rules, and are just wrong.

by omission as they do NOT say "same powers stack" ergo they don't. Just like they do NOT say "do not hit your opponent over the head and kick him in the shins" or do we need a rule for that as well?

If you could quote any rules from the psychic powers then there wouldn't be as much of a debate. but alas, the only way your interpretation works is to ignore all rules from the psychic powers section.

Different powers stack, and by omission same powers do not. If you don't want to see this as RAW, it is clearly RAI. either way same powers do NOT stack.

1. I would say that the RAI is not clear either.
2. Psychic powers are given permission to be cast and resolved. Because I have permission to resolve, I don't need written permission for them to stack. You need to find where it says they can't.

Two psykers cast the same power, and resolve it if it is on different targets. How is it any different from resolving it twice on the same unit? Simply resolve one, based on the units current stats. Then resolve the second, based on whatever the units current stats are.

Because under resolving powers is also the rule "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" The powers have to be different for them to stack. But I'm glad you realize that we are talking about the same power.