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.

So, again, you do not have an argument based in the written
rules?

It is functionally a reminder, as it does not alter how the rules ACTUALLY work in any way shape or form. Something I note you very carefully never respond to.

Are you arguing HYWPI? Please follow the tenets of this forum if so. If not, provide an actual rules argument please, as you have yet to do so (breaking the tenets of this forum)

Permission to resolve but not permission to stack. I'm glad you think I'm being gracious.

I think it's rich you accuse people of making stuff up when you're doing the same by asserting it's a reminder.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Permission to resolve but not permission to stack. I'm glad you think I'm being gracious.

I think it's rich you accuse people of making stuff up when you're doing the same by asserting it's a reminder.

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

Yes. As I mentioned, both interpretations are valid (due to the poor wording of the sentence). The first is that the target has multiple enfeeble "clouds" around it, but they all have the same effect. The power has been resolved, but it has no real effect. The second is that each individual resolution further adds an effect. However, the second makes the text stating that "different powers are cumulative" and that "no psyker can cast the same power twice" unnecessary, so it is not one that should be embraced.

liturgies of blood wrote:Permission to resolve but not permission to stack.

Ah, so despite you being told to make them -1T yo9u arent going to do that? Found a rule yet to back up your argument, or are you still handwaving that away and pretending it doesnt matter?

liturgies of blood wrote:I'm glad you think I'm being gracious.

Nope,. "gracious". Difference there. ITs quite subtle though. However it IS a differnce that exists, and hasnt been made up.

liturgies of blood wrote:I think it's rich you accuse people of making stuff up when you're doing the same by asserting it's a reminder.

SO, care to actually provide any rules to back up your argument? I am asserting it is a reminder because functionally that is what it is, and I have backed up [u]my[/u/] assertion with actual rules, something you have failed to do in violation of the tenets of this forum.

So, your refusal to provide any actual rules to backup your assertion is accepted as your concession that you have no argument.

It says nowhere that resolving equates stacking of effects. It only allows different powers to stack that is all the rules allow.

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

Edit: @liturgies
Ah, so again you fail to present a rules argument? Any chance you could follow the tenets, or are we now in HYWPIterritory? AS again you should note that you are talking a houserule you play, and not the rules of 40k

You are told to make unit X -1T. You do so. they go from T4 to T3
You are told to make unit X -1T. They go from T3 to T2. That is RESOLVING the power. Unless you reduce their toughness, you have not RESOLVED the power

You are claiming that The second casting "resolves" but instead of going from T3 to T2 they stay at T3. You have yet to provide a single rules argument to support your assertion, and as such it will be considered JUST a houserule you are making up

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

Or following the rules?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It says nowhere that resolving equates stacking of effects. It only allows different powers to stack that is all the rules allow.

The rules allow you to cast enfeeble on a target and resolve it. That target is now -1T (From T4 to T3).

The rules also allow a different Psyker to cast enfeeble on that same target. That enfeeble reduces the, now T3, target by -1. bringing the target to T2.

This is all allowed by the rules.

Do you have any rules that say not to apply the -1? because you have not posted any rules that restrict these allowed actions.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

Good grief, so when you cannot find an actual rules argument, despite being asked repeatedly to actually DO so, you resort to name calling?

Any more fallacies you would like to add in to this thread? You're on a fair number now.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

No. Reported.
You're making an assumption that you're absolutely correct on guessing their intent. I disagree. I'm not trying to get any advantage out of it.

It seems like some of these arguements do not understand what a permissive ruleset is. It means you need to have permission in the rules to do something. Permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to be cumulative. The only things that have permission to stack in the brb are rule and wargear (pg2 i think) and different psykic powers(page 68). This leads us back to the discission on what different means. Any arguement about other aspects is clearly covered by RAW.

Note for those arguing that permission to resolve powers is permission to be cumulative: in the RESOLVING psychic powers section on page 68, only different powers are given permission to stack. If you can find anywhere that actually gives permission for powers that are not different to stack, I will concede the arguement. Until you can find that permission, you have no proof to back you're arguement.

cryhavok wrote:
It seems like some of these arguements do not understand what a permissive ruleset is. It means you need to have permission in the rules to do something.

Your argument, and those with similar arguments to yours seem to be the ones that "do not understand what a permissive ruleset is."

cryhavok wrote:
Permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to be cumulative.

This is false.

The power dictates how to resolve itself.

If you do not lower the Toughness of the unit by 1, you have not resolved the power.

 DeathReaper wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
It seems like some of these arguements do not understand what a permissive ruleset is. It means you need to have permission in the rules to do something.

Your argument, and those with similar arguments to yours seem to be the ones that "do not understand what a permissive ruleset is."

cryhavok wrote:
Permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to be cumulative.

This is false.

The power dictates how to resolve itself.

If you do not lower the Toughness of the unit by 1, you have not resolved the power.

Actually the BRB tells you how to resolve the power. It is under "resolving psichic powers" it does not give permission for powers that are not different. A lack of anything in the BRB giving permission is the exact opposite of permission. Until you actually show permission, you do not have it.

cryhavok wrote:
it does not give permission for powers that are not different.

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

exactly... nothing is needed to "stop" same spell stacking...

you need explicit permission to do it.

it being STACK the spell... not cast or resolve the spell

having anecdotal "well i can cast/resolve the spell twice, and 1+1=2 " is not a good argument, nor is it bases in the rules.

the assumption that you even add the 1's is an assumption, not based in rules.

the target has enfeeble cast on them, they are -1 t, another enfeeble is cast, they are already at -1 t, which is what enfeeble states, so the conditions are already met.

explicit permission must be given to allow you to add the 1's up.

we all know it can be cast/resolved, that is not the same as stacking so stop wrongly equating these terms

The power gives a cloud over the unit that says "While in effect, this is -1 S/T". The problem is, there is no rule given for what happens when there are multiple identical "clouds". However, the explicit permission given for how to resolve different "clouds" and the necessity of making the same power the "same" for the psyker rule, means that by saying they are cumulative and not concurrent, you are breaking those rules (well, breaking one, making one pointless).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If all maledictions would stack, it would say that. It doesn't. It says different maledictions stack.

I enfeeble you. You suffer -1T.
I use that nurgle power on yuo. You're supposed to suffer -1T. You're already suffering -1T from the Enfeeble. Do they stack? Oh, the rule says they do.

I have permission to cast a second Enfeeble.
I have permission to apply the effect (assuming I passed the test and you failed to deny).
Find denial of that permission. Permission for different ones to stack is not denial for same ones to stack.

you do not need denial rules to deny an action.... in a permissive rule set you need permission to perform an action.

denial is not needed to stop stacking, permission is needed to allow it.

permission to stack different powers is not permission to stack identical powers

permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

 easysauce wrote:
explicit permission must be given to allow you to add the 1's up.

You're failing to resolve the power if you don't.
And adding up the 1's (or taking away the 1's in this case) is covered in the Enfeeble rules.
-1
It's right there. How do you resolve minus one?
You're saying it doesn't say minus. Maths disagrees.

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

In the exact section which discusses resolving it powers it says repeatedly which powers stack. Claiming that other powers stack too, because it didn't specifically say they don't is rules-lawyering or alternatively acute failure to understand context of the sentence, sorry if that offends someone.

To me it is like this: I have a bowl of candies with lollipops, candy canes and few chocolate bars. I say to bunch of kids: "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops."
Then one of the kids takes all the chocolate bars and says "You didn't I say I can't take multiple chocolate bars!"

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

In the exact section which discusses resolving it powers it says repeatedly which powers stack. Claiming that other powers stack too, because it didn't specifically say they don't is rules-lawyering or alternatively acute failure to understand context of the sentence, sorry if that offends someone.

To me it is like this: I have a bowl of candies with lollipops, candy canes and few chocolate bars. I say to bunch of kids: "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops."
Then one of the kids takes all the chocolate bars and says "You didn't I say I can't take multiple chocolate bars!"

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

The only way they don't stack is if powers with the same name are not "different" (yet to be proven).
They do if you follow rules for resolving powers OR different castings of the same power are "different".

Rules not insults please.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

In the exact section which discusses resolving it powers it says repeatedly which powers stack. Claiming that other powers stack too, because it didn't specifically say they don't is rules-lawyering or alternatively acute failure to understand context of the sentence, sorry if that offends someone.

To me it is like this: I have a bowl of candies with lollipops, candy canes and few chocolate bars. I say to bunch of kids: "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops."
Then one of the kids takes all the chocolate bars and says "You didn't I say I can't take multiple chocolate bars!"

Perhaps this is a cultural difference - your example is perfectly valid in that it would be unfair to punish the chocolate bar child. The proper way to word it (to include a restriction) would be "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops but only a single chocolate bar."

See? It's possible to post without insulting someone. I've done so.

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

The only way they don't stack is if powers with the same name are not "different" (yet to be proven).
They do if you follow rules for resolving powers OR different castings of the same power are "different".

As it has been said several times: if multiple castings the same power are different, then one psyker can cast same power multiple times as each separate casting is different, and thus it is impossible to ever be casting same power multiple times.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

The intent is not clear - please stop asserting that it is.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

In the enfeeble rules it does not give you permission to have the effect be cumulative. In the BRB it does not give you permission for the effect to be cumulative. The result is that the effect is not cumulative. Any other result selectively ignores rules as written.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

Clear intent?
Please prove the "clear intent". I can't mind read.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

In the enfeeble rules it does not give you permission to have the effect be cumulative. In the BRB it does not give you permission for the effect to be cumulative. The result is that the effect is not cumulative. Any other result selectively ignores rules as written.

So you're choosing not to apply the -1STR?
Cite a rule please. Cite the rule as written I'm ignoring. Just once when asked for that I'd like anyone to produce it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Perhaps this is a cultural difference - your example is perfectly valid in that it would be unfair to punish the chocolate bar child. The proper way to word it (to include a restriction) would be "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops but only a single chocolate bar."

I agree that your wording is clearer. However, this is binary situation: either you can take multiple chocolate bars or you can't. And even from the original sentence a normal person would infer you can't (though 'normal people' might not contain kids, so it would still be bad wording for that particular situation.)

Similarly I assume that GW put that sentence (and repeated it twice) in the psychic power rules for a reason. In that context one must conclude that saying: 'in this specific situation powers stack' infers that in other situations they don't.