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.

 jifel wrote:

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.

Permission to resolve has nothing to do with permission to stack

sirlynchmob wrote:
*snip*

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.

Yes, thats been brought up a lot. However, it doesn't mean I can't resolve the same malediction. This doesnt mean multiple same maledictions dont stack.

Saying "Steak tastes good' doesn't mean that "Ham doesn't taste good".

Basically, I have permission to resolve all Psychic powers I cast. If I happen to cast it on the same unit twice, I am allowed by the rules to resolve my powers. Because I cast it twice, I can therefore resolve it twice. I have posted this a few times I know, but so far no one has been able to contradict it without using a logical fallacy like the rule "multiple different powers are cumulative".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

 jifel wrote:

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.

Permission to resolve has nothing to do with permission to stack

If the power is resolved twice, then its effects happen twice. Pretty simple there. Why would it not if I resolve it twice?

 jifel wrote:


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?

Resolving is not the same as stacking. Analogy:

I have the ability to make three statements. The effect of each statement is that I relay information. I exorcise my ability to make a statement three times and resolve each one at a time.

1. "I walked my dog."
2. "I walked my dog."
3. "I walked my dog."
I have now used and resolved my ability three times. Was any more information relayed in statement 2 or 3? No. This is how non-stacking resolution works. I'd have to make different statements to have additional effect. 'Same' powers are used and resolved with no additional effect.

I'm speaking about psychic powers in general.

Yes, forgot about the difficult terrain, replace with Haemorrhage then

Hits themselves are not a lasting effect(though they can create one) and so do not need to stack.

 jifel wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

 jifel wrote:

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.

Permission to resolve has nothing to do with permission to stack

If the power is resolved twice, then its effects happen twice. Pretty simple there. Why would it not if I resolve it twice?

Resolving a power does not guarantee effects , your assuming it does .

According to the actual rules it does actually.
You're told to resolve the power according to its rules entry.
Find anything in the rules entry that allows you to not apply the modifiers.

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

Cite the rule that explicitly stops the modifiers from being applied.

rigeld2 wrote:

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

You did it for me

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

You did it for me

Great, so since I can cite rules that cover those scenarios, you can obviously cite one - just one, for the first time ever in this thread - to cover Enfeeble's modifiers not being applied to a unit if there is already an Enfeeble applied.
I'd love to see it. I'm predicting that you'll (not you specifically, more the people arguing it doesn't stack) throw out another red herring or in some other way distract from the point (like continually saying 5+2=7 - you keep riding that train despite being proved wrong every. Single. Time.).

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the actual rules it does actually.
You're told to resolve the power according to its rules entry.
Find anything in the rules entry that allows you to not apply the modifiers.

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

Cite the rule that explicitly stops the modifiers from being applied.

The section that tells you to resolve the power also specifies which powers are cumulative. If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

EDIT: We've quoted the applicable rules to you over and over though you refuse to see... but on more time since you ask.
Here ya go, the entire Resolve Psychic Power entry.

"Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Does it say 'same' powers are cumulative? No. Where does it say that? Please cite rule.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the actual rules it does actually.
You're told to resolve the power according to its rules entry.
Find anything in the rules entry that allows you to not apply the modifiers.

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

Cite the rule that explicitly stops the modifiers from being applied.

The section that tells you to resolve the power also specifies which powers are cumulative. If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?
I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?
I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?

Where is the denial of permission?

 Abandon wrote:
If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

And there is your leap in logic.

"the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not mean that casting enfeeble twice on a single unit is not cumulative, given that we have permission to cast the power on a single unit twice with different casters.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the actual rules it does actually.
You're told to resolve the power according to its rules entry.
Find anything in the rules entry that allows you to not apply the modifiers.

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

Cite the rule that explicitly stops the modifiers from being applied.

The section that tells you to resolve the power also specifies which powers are cumulative. If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?
I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?
I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?

Where is the denial of permission?

Assuming you refering to the scenario where you are using enfeeble on a target that already is under the effect of another enfeeble.

"I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?"
Assuming valid target and all that jazz, yes.
"I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?"
Yup.
"I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?"
No. The effect of the second enfeeble is not permitted to be cumulative with the first.

 AG. wrote:
I just have a question, and don't have my BRB with me.

Is there an assumed initiative order in the Shooting phase, within a squad or unit?

Like, when you fire two Witchfire spells, do they happen at once, or one after another?

An example might be something like (and again, no BRB, so might not be super accurate) firing a Witchfire, then a beam, in order to target a model that was hidden behind some models.

The reason I ask is that if it happens at the same time, you'd use the base initiative for both of your Maledictions (assuming they do stack).

So at the given moment, your stat is X.

Malediction makes it X-1.

If the second malediction is fired at the same given moment, the stat is still just X.

See what I'm getting at? It's not a fully formed idea mind.

Is this irrelevant?

Crimson - reported for personal attack and OT. Did suggest you desisted. Again, start a new thread, we can discuss the differences in phrasing there. Any further demands from you to discuss it in here will also be reported as OT

Sirlynch - hilarious "argument" you are now making. I'm apparently 3 different posters (have also been asked if I was Gwar!, in the past)
Clearly I am Alpharius!

The gulf in understanding is clearly too great for debate to be possible. You continually parrot a couple of fallacious arguments as if they mean something. They don't, and despite a careful dissection of why this is the case, you have shown no comprehension of your continued errors of logic.

/ignore

All else - Page 2 says you apply modifiers. Find arule saying you do not apply the second modifier.

You need a restriction, as page 2 gives the general permission. You are creating a requirement ("despite being shown maths works as normal, here you must again have a rule saying maths works as normal") that does not exist in the rules.

T4, cast enfeeble. I am now T3. My toughness, for 1 game turn, is 3. You have no permission to consider my previous T value - it does not exist

I cast enfeeble on you again. Your toughness is now 3 - 1. If you do not apply the modifier you have not resolved the power.

So, for the final time - find a rule stating you are allowed to ignore the second -1. Failure to do this by the "anti stack " side will be concession of the whole argument, and admission the thread should be finally locked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - reported for personal attack and OT. Did suggest you desisted. Again, start a new thread, we can discuss the differences in phrasing there. Any further demands from you to discuss it in here will also be reported as OT

I really do not see how stacking of specific powers is OT for thread about power stacking, and I've no desire to start new thread about it, as it inevitability would lead to discussion of power stacking in general, and that's what we are doing in this thread already. But If you have no desire to defend your claims, that's fine by me.

I'd still like to hear other people's views on how they feel Dominate fits in this whole stacking business; even if Nosferatu does not want to discuss it, there's no reason others couldn't.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the actual rules it does actually.
You're told to resolve the power according to its rules entry.
Find anything in the rules entry that allows you to not apply the modifiers.

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

Cite the rule that explicitly stops the modifiers from being applied.

The section that tells you to resolve the power also specifies which powers are cumulative. If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?
I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?
I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?

Where is the denial of permission?

Assuming you refering to the scenario where you are using enfeeble on a target that already is under the effect of another enfeeble.

"I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?"
Assuming valid target and all that jazz, yes.
"I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?"
Yup.
"I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?"
No. The effect of the second enfeeble is not permitted to be cumulative with the first.

So where is the denial rule? You've asserted it exists. Prove it. You'd be the first ever.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - reported for personal attack and OT. Did suggest you desisted. Again, start a new thread, we can discuss the differences in phrasing there. Any further demands from you to discuss it in here will also be reported as OT

I really do not see how stacking of specific powers is OT for thread about power stacking, and I've no desire to start new thread about it, as it inevitability would lead to discussion of power stacking in general, and that's what we are doing in this thread already. But If you have no desire to defend your claims, that's fine by me.

I'd still like to hear other people's views on how they feel Dominate fits in this whole stacking business; even if Nosferatu does not want to discuss it, there's no reason others couldn't.

Nos seems to want to report or ignore everyone that disagrees with him. Unfortunately Sirlynch is muddying the water with his illogical arguments that have been debunked pretty straight forwardly. Where as you actually have a point, which evidently Nos does not want to confront.

I would be interested in the pro stacking sides opinion on how the whilst in effect wording works. Or how they prove that this power refers to the instance rather than the power in general.

No AG, not irrelevant - there is an order to the phases, as evidence multiple times. Simultaneous withina unit (apart from Networked ML, of course) but sequential outside
It is a point the no-stack side ignore, as it also messes up their argument.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

And there is your leap in logic.

"the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not mean that casting enfeeble twice on a single unit is not cumulative, given that we have permission to cast the power on a single unit twice with different casters.

RAW, Deathreaper is correct, and this basically sums up why the the "Maledictions don't stack" argument is incorrect. Of course it could be FAQd, but for now you have all failed to actually cite a rule that says the second power isn't allowed to stack.

 AG. wrote:

 AG. wrote:
I just have a question, and don't have my BRB with me.

Is there an assumed initiative order in the Shooting phase, within a squad or unit?

Like, when you fire two Witchfire spells, do they happen at once, or one after another?

An example might be something like (and again, no BRB, so might not be super accurate) firing a Witchfire, then a beam, in order to target a model that was hidden behind some models.

The reason I ask is that if it happens at the same time, you'd use the base initiative for both of your Maledictions (assuming they do stack).

So at the given moment, your stat is X.

Malediction makes it X-1.

If the second malediction is fired at the same given moment, the stat is still just X.

See what I'm getting at? It's not a fully formed idea mind.

Is this irrelevant?

Casting maledictions happens at the same time. However, since we don't literally set out the dice for each power and roll all at once, they happen in an order. The BRB says that when two things happen at the same time, the player whos turn it is decides the order they are done in. So as the player whos turn it is, I could decide to cast one Enfeeble, then the other.

RAW, Deathreaper is correct, and this basically sums up why the the "Maledictions don't stack" argument is incorrect. Of course it could be FAQd, but for now you have all failed to actually cite a rule that says the second power isn't allowed to stack.

How about the Enfeeble rule? It states "whilst this power is in effect..." so you cast enfeeble it is in effect. Therefore the unit is at -1T if I cast it again the power is still in effect so still -1T. However many times I cast the spell the result is the same it is in effect the unit is therefore at -1T.

Can you prove that resolving power isn't simply putting it into effect?

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAW, Deathreaper is correct, and this basically sums up why the the "Maledictions don't stack" argument is incorrect. Of course it could be FAQd, but for now you have all failed to actually cite a rule that says the second power isn't allowed to stack.

How about the Enfeeble rule? It states "whilst this power is in effect..." so you cast enfeeble it is in effect. Therefore the unit is at -1T if I cast it again the power is still in effect so still -1T. However many times I cast the spell the result is the same it is in effect the unit is therefore at -1T.

Can you prove that resolving power isn't simply putting it into effect?

Well, I agree that an argument can be made due to Enfeebles wording at least. Still, my interpretation is that the power is in effect twice, and so the modifiers are applied twice.

As I said, its possible to debate Enfeeble, but Maledictions as a whole definitely stack from a RAW perspective.

Show me a malediction that doesn't use the "whilst this power is in effect" wording. Yes theoretically a malediction would stack but practically speaking they do not because all relevant ones use wording that stops this.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - reported for personal attack and OT. Did suggest you desisted. Again, start a new thread, we can discuss the differences in phrasing there. Any further demands from you to discuss it in here will also be reported as OT

I really do not see how stacking of specific powers is OT for thread about power stacking, and I've no desire to start new thread about it, as it inevitability would lead to discussion of power stacking in general, and that's what we are doing in this thread already. But If you have no desire to defend your claims, that's fine by me.

I'd still like to hear other people's views on how they feel Dominate fits in this whole stacking business; even if Nosferatu does not want to discuss it, there's no reason others couldn't.

Nos seems to want to report or ignore everyone that disagrees with him. Unfortunately Sirlynch is muddying the water with his illogical arguments that have been debunked pretty straight forwardly. Where as you actually have a point, which evidently Nos does not want to confront.

I would be interested in the pro stacking sides opinion on how the whilst in effect wording works. Or how they prove that this power refers to the instance rather than the power in general.

They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers. It shows when in question about the math we look at the rules first, not pg 2. As the stacking side brought up pg 2, discussing and showing how it works is on topic as well.

So it's on the stacking side to find their cumulative modifier, and not on the anti stacking side to try and prove a negative statement.

It's a thread about maledictions stacking, so any malediction is on topic.

They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the armour saves topic proves that maths stands unless there is a specific rule that tells you to do something different. Where do the Psychic rules tell you that maths works differently for them or give you something different to do?

Omission =/= Permission. That is a standard bylaw of a permissive rule set. You must have permission to do something, and omission automatically equates to denial.

Per the verbiage "unless otherwise states, different Maledictions are cumulative", we have permission for different Maledictions to stack with each other, while by omission, it is implied that multiple uses of the same Malediction do not stack without permission. This is originally determined on page 32, where we are advised the unless otherwise stated, the benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. Page 32 sets a precedent, an intent by the authors, that is repeated five times in the Psychic Powers section. We are given permission to stack different modifiers, and are denied permission to stack modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability. Stating that Psychic Rules are not Special Rules is incorrect, given that "Psyker" is a Universal Special rule the tells us to reference the Psychic Powers section of the book for addition rules, and under those additional rules is the often repeated rule that unless otherwise stated, different psychic powers are cumulative.

Enfeeble = Enfeeble. Whilst a target is Enfeebled, it will remain Enfeebled until the end of the following turn. Any further castings of Enfeeble will not make the target "double-Enfeebled" or "triple-Enfeebled", because by omission multiple uses of Enfeeble on the same target are not cumulative due to Enfeeble lacking specific verbiage stating otherwise. There is at least one power in 6th Ed that does contain such verbiage, reenforcing the intent noted in the BRB.

As to page 2, it is a fallacy to state that basic math overrides specific rules, since the BRB dictates how math is applied within the rule set. The rules tell us which modifiers are cumulative (different sources) and which are concurrent (same source) in six different passages in the BRB, all of which occur after page 2. To further support this, the authors omitted any example on page 2 of multiple similar modifiers being applied (I challenge you to quote one!).

SJ

 jifel wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAW, Deathreaper is correct, and this basically sums up why the the "Maledictions don't stack" argument is incorrect. Of course it could be FAQd, but for now you have all failed to actually cite a rule that says the second power isn't allowed to stack.

How about the Enfeeble rule? It states "whilst this power is in effect..." so you cast enfeeble it is in effect. Therefore the unit is at -1T if I cast it again the power is still in effect so still -1T. However many times I cast the spell the result is the same it is in effect the unit is therefore at -1T.

Can you prove that resolving power isn't simply putting it into effect?

Well, I agree that an argument can be made due to Enfeebles wording at least. Still, my interpretation is that the power is in effect twice, and so the modifiers are applied twice.

As I said, its possible to debate Enfeeble, but Maledictions as a whole definitely stack from a RAW perspective.

How would you handle a situation where your opponent said no and refused to play it your way?

 FlingitNow wrote:

They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the armour saves topic proves that maths stands unless there is a specific rule that tells you to do something different. Where do the Psychic rules tell you that maths works differently for them or give you something different to do?

Only different psychic powers stack, only different maledictions stack,. so as enfeeble = enfeeble they don't have permission to stack. "is it stated otherwise" in the enfeeble entry that they stack? no, ergo they don't. They'll grant you a single modifier and not a second. pg 68, it grants permission for different to stack, and that's it. By omission its saying same powers don't stack as they are not given permission to do so.

and pg 142, SRB, or 418 BRB show that different psychers can have the same power. and we can see from here enfeeble = enfeeble no matter who manifested the power.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
8855f3d864db906eab76d034d37d2101.png]

*snip*

How would you handle a situation where your opponent said no and refused to play it your way?

In a tournament, I would ask the judge. So far, every local judge that ive asked has ruled stacking, and the entire store plays it this way. However, if it should become an issue in a friendly game I would present my case, if he disagrees I would offer a dice off or just enfeeble a different unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the armour saves topic proves that maths stands unless there is a specific rule that tells you to do something different. Where do the Psychic rules tell you that maths works differently for them or give you something different to do?

Only different psychic powers stack, only different maledictions stack,. so as enfeeble = enfeeble they don't have permission to stack. "is it stated otherwise" in the enfeeble entry that they stack? no, ergo they don't. They'll grant you a single modifier and not a second. pg 68, it grants permission for different to stack, and that's it. By omission its saying same powers don't stack as they are not given permission to do so.

and pg 142, SRB, or 418 BRB show that different psychers can have the same power. and we can see from here enfeeble = enfeeble no matter who manifested the power.

You are misquoting the rules. Nowhere does it say that only different malesictions stack.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Omission =/= Permission. That is a standard bylaw of a permissive rule set. You must have permission to do something, and omission automatically equates to denial.

Correct. I've never said otherwise.

This is originally determined on page 32

Stop right there - what does a rule in the Special Rules section have to do with Psychic Powers?
You do know that Enfeeble (and other Maledictions) are not special rules, right?

There is at least one power in 6th Ed that does contain such verbiage, reenforcing the intent noted in the BRB.

So you're making an argument of intent? Okay.

As to page 2, it is a fallacy to state that basic math overrides specific rules, since the BRB dictates how math is applied within the rule set. The rules tell us which modifiers are cumulative (different sources) and which are concurrent (same source) in six different passages in the BRB, all of which occur after page 2. To further support this, the authors omitted any example on page 2 of multiple similar modifiers being applied (I challenge you to quote one!).

Except there are literally zero specific rules saying that same maledictions don't stack. There is a rule that implies that - but implication isn't enough. Implication is evidence of intent but has nothing to do with what's actually written.

I challenge you to quote a single rule that denies the permission given by page 2 for modifiers to stack. I don't need a rule that says they do - multiple modifiers makes allowance for a number of modifiers to be applied.

As to your challenge, there doesn't need to be an example of 4+1+1=6 - that's factual. There does need to be examples of how the different modifiers (especially set modifiers) interact.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Only different psychic powers stack, only different maledictions stack.

That is nowhere in the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers. It shows when in question about the math we look at the rules first, not pg 2. As the stacking side brought up pg 2, discussing and showing how it works is on topic as well.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the armour saves topic proves that maths stands unless there is a specific rule that tells you to do something different. Where do the Psychic rules tell you that maths works differently for them or give you something different to do?

Sirlynchmob, please understand what fling is saying.

 FlingitNow wrote:

RAW, Deathreaper is correct, and this basically sums up why the the "Maledictions don't stack" argument is incorrect. Of course it could be FAQd, but for now you have all failed to actually cite a rule that says the second power isn't allowed to stack.

How about the Enfeeble rule? It states "whilst this power is in effect..." so you cast enfeeble it is in effect. Therefore the unit is at -1T if I cast it again the power is still in effect so still -1T. However many times I cast the spell the result is the same it is in effect the unit is therefore at -1T.

Can you prove that resolving power isn't simply putting it into effect?

Because this enfeeble refers to that casting of enfeeble.

The issue with Dominate, you can cast it twice, but once you pass a single LD check to move you have fulfilled both Dominates so casting Dominate twice on a unit is worthless.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Omission =/= Permission. That is a standard bylaw of a permissive rule set. You must have permission to do something, and omission automatically equates to denial.

This is 100% true.

Of course in the case of enfeeble we have permission to cast it twice on the same unit and permission to use normal math to modify the units Toughness stat.