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.

 Crimson wrote:

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.

No, you're inserting intent. That's absolutely not a valid, logical reading.
A "normal" person would infer, from your original statement, that more information was required to determine intent. "So can I take multiple chocolate bars?" would be the response I would expect.
Again, cultural differences. Stop assuming that because someone isn't from around you they must automatically be breaking rules to gain an advantage. I think I've cast enfeeble... twice? And not in the same games.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Wheather or not the intent is clear is an opinion and a matter of perspective. To him the intent is clear. He can assert his opinion all he wants without being wrong... Especially when he is supported by raw.

 grendel083 wrote:

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

some people keep using the rules about how you cast and resolve powers as "proof" you can stack all/identical powers. Guess what, part of the rules for resolving powers include the rule I keep quoting to you why most people ignore this part of resolving the power

pg 68 under RESOLVE PYSCHIC POWERSpg 68

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

it does not state that identical powers are. a similar entry is found under maledictions/blessings and is the same, with the word different in there as well. They repeat three times that different powers/mele/bless are cumulitive, and no where do they once state that identical or all powers/male/bless are cumulative. the latter is what the stackers are saying is 100%raw. even though that rule does not exist on paper.

over and over again "but I CAN CAST and RESOLVE powers" so what? part of resolving that power is that "different powers stack"

the power you are resolving, is it different from the one you are trying to resolve a stack effect on? yes? good the rule book says those stack!

no? its the same power? well the rule book doesnt say those stack anywhere.

resolving only says "different powers" stack and casting still isnt talking about stacking or cumulative effects at any point, and it is not blanket permission to stack all/identical powers as you stipulate since part of resolution is the rule on stacking different powers.

the only part that specifically talks about powers stacking, says that different powers stack.

what is certain is that it does not say all/identical powers stack and, in a permissive ruleset, the fact that it is not there means we can not do it.

otherwise you are saying the rule book does not have to have a restriction on every single rule that isnt written in it, things can only be disallowed when the are already allowed by some other rule in the first place.

So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

rigeld2 wrote:
So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

resolve psychic powers after deny the witch tells use that pg 68

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

it does not say pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple identical psychic powers are cumulative.

you need a rule to allow identical to stack, other wise you cannot resolve the power as you state. because part of resovling powers is pg 68

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

and your power is not different. so it does not match the RAW

you have taken an identical power and stacked it, which has no rule allowing it.

please quote the rule, under resolving powers, that says identical powers stack that lets you make them cumulative

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

resolve psychic powers after deny the witch tells use that pg 68

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

it does not say pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple identical psychic powers are cumulative.

you need a rule to allow identical to stack, other wise you cannot resolve the power as you state. because part of resovling powers is pg 68

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

and your power is not different. so it does not match the RAW

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Rule as written: "Different powers are cumulative." This is the only type of power in the game give permission to stack. Enfeeble does not give you permission. RAW is that no permission is given to apply the second -1 when the power resolves. In a permissive ruleset you need permission to do anything. Anything includes stacking. You have permission to cast and reslove two enfeebles on the same target. You do not have permission for the result to be cumulative.

You're argument is essentially that permission to resolve a power is permission to ignore any and all restrictions. (Lack of permission to be cumulative is a restriction) That argument is simply wrong in so many ways that trying to explain them to you would be pointless.

Only three things are given blanket permission to be cumulative: rules, wargear, and different powers. Everything else must be given explicit permission to be cumulative or it is not. That is RAW. That is what you are ignoring.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

cryhavok wrote:
Rule as written: "Different powers are cumulative." This is the only type of power in the game give permission to stack. Enfeeble does not give you permission. RAW is that no permission is given to apply the second -1 when the power resolves. In a permissive ruleset you need permission to do anything. Anything includes stacking. You have permission to cast and reslove two enfeebles on the same target. You do not have permission for the result to be cumulative.

Again - you even stated I have permission to resolve the power.
Part of resolving the power is applying -1S and T.
If you do not apply -1S and T you have not resolved the power.

Since it seems like this is devolving into a circular argument, consider a real life example. If you are charged with three counts of robbery, convicted on each and sentenced to 5 years in prison for each, you've either been sentenced to 5 or 15 years, depending if the sentences are cconcurrent or cumulative. Both sentences fulfill the requirements. Here, we are not told if they are cumulative or concurrent. However, the repeated reference to different powers being cumulative would be unnecessary if they were cumulative; or if a new casting means it is "different", then the restriction against casting the same power would have no meaning. Either way, it breaks the rules, or bends them severely at the least. Saying that the same power is not cumulative doesn't have this problem, and the language of the rules, while not crystal clear, explicitly shows intent to treat different psychic powers in a different manner than the same one.

Blessings have the same wording as Malediction:

GW ruled Hammerhand = Able to stack so long as DIFFERENT CASTERS had manifested it.

Hammerhand = Blessing

Blessing wording same as Malediction: = Different powers when it comes to different casters. = Able to cumulatively stack.

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

resolve psychic powers after deny the witch tells use that pg 68

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

it does not say pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple identical psychic powers are cumulative.

you need a rule to allow identical to stack, other wise you cannot resolve the power as you state. because part of resovling powers is pg 68

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

and your power is not different. so it does not match the RAW

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

No actually, that would be HOW PERMISSIVE RULESETS WORK! Seriously, why do we have to keep repeating that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaisshau wrote:
Since it seems like this is devolving into a circular argument, consider a real life example. If you are charged with three counts of robbery, convicted on each and sentenced to 5 years in prison for each, you've either been sentenced to 5 or 15 years, depending if the sentences are cconcurrent or cumulative. Both sentences fulfill the requirements. Here, we are not told if they are cumulative or concurrent. However, the repeated reference to different powers being cumulative would be unnecessary if they were cumulative; or if a new casting means it is "different", then the restriction against casting the same power would have no meaning. Either way, it breaks the rules, or bends them severely at the least. Saying that the same power is not cumulative doesn't have this problem, and the language of the rules, while not crystal clear, explicitly shows intent to treat different psychic powers in a different manner than the same one.

Using a similar example, say you were convicted and sentenced to three life sentences. You will have still gone to trial (cast) and still been sentenced (resolved) but guess what, after that first lifetime is over, you are not serving more because lifetime sentences aren't, in fact, cumulative.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is logically different than "Same maledictions are not cumulative". Law of inverse, converse, or contrapositive, I don't remember it's been 15 years since that class.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is not a restrictive statement or rule as there is no restriction, only positive reinforcement. Thus it is a reminder. If you want it to be a restriction, it needs to read "ONLY different maledictions are cumulative", which it does not. Making it a restrictive statement requires intent, which is subjective and not RAW.

Here's a comparable statement:

"If you eat two different fruit, you will enjoy them." In the same fashion, this statement does not mean, nor does it imply "if you eat two of the same fruit, you will not enjoy them".

RAW, a psyker can spend a warp charge, take the ld test and resolve a power. The restrictions are in targeting legal units and not using the same power twice. A unit with enfeeble cast and resolved is -1str and -1t. There is no RAW restriction at that point that makes targeting and resolving enfeeble with a second psyker on the same unit. Resolving -1str and -1t is inherently permitted.

If you are claiming you can't resolve -1t twice, please quote an actual rule that says this, as the psychic process allows both powers to be cast and resolved following the correct process. If you haven't subtracted 2t, you haven't resolved enfeeble twice and broken a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

resolving the power does not mean applying an additional -1 unless you have explicit permission to be cumulative. That permisssion does not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
"Different maledictions are cumulative" is logically different than "Same maledictions are not cumulative". Law of inverse, converse, or contrapositive, I don't remember it's been 15 years since that class.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is not a restrictive statement or rule as there is no restriction, only positive reinforcement. Thus it is a reminder. If you want it to be a restriction, it needs to read "ONLY different maledictions are cumulative", which it does not. Making it a restrictive statement requires intent, which is subjective and not RAW.

Here's a comparable statement:

"If you eat two different fruit, you will enjoy them." In the same fashion, this statement does not mean, nor does it imply "if you eat two of the same fruit, you will not enjoy them".

RAW, a psyker can spend a warp charge, take the ld test and resolve a power. The restrictions are in targeting legal units and not using the same power twice. A unit with enfeeble cast and resolved is -1str and -1t. There is no RAW restriction at that point that makes targeting and resolving enfeeble with a second psyker on the same unit. Resolving -1str and -1t is inherently permitted.

If you are claiming you can't resolve -1t twice, please quote an actual rule that says this, as the psychic process allows both powers to be cast and resolved following the correct process. If you haven't subtracted 2t, you haven't resolved enfeeble twice and broken a rule.

Actually I am arguing that you can cast and resolve the second power, it just won't apply a further -1. Being a permissive ruleset means that if one thing has permission to do something (be cumulative) and nothing else does, then nothing else can.

Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

Oh, and you just made up yet another rule! - cite your proof that you require explicit permission to "stack", despite having permission to resolve? As you have just created this requiremetn from nowhere.

So, any chance of some rules? Maybe? Or will you start another thread up?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

resolving the power does not mean applying an additional -1 unless you have explicit permission to be cumulative. That permisssion does not exist.

So you're not resolving the power? Because that absolutely does require applying a -1 S and T.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

I have. I have multiple times. You have not shown explicit permission to be cumulative. Accusing me of doing what you are doing, and accusing me of breaking forum tenents sems like it might be doing exactly that. So I am done with discussing this with you. You are wrong, and you resorting to personal attack makes you seem rather trollish. Also- reported.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

resolving the power does not mean applying an additional -1 unless you have explicit permission to be cumulative. That permisssion does not exist.

So you're not resolving the power? Because that absolutely does require applying a -1 S and T.

No it is not. It is the desired effect of using the power, that does not mean it is the only way it can be resolved. Infact in the rules for resolving psychic powers it gives explicit permission for different powers to stack. If it is niether different, nor states that this bonus or penalty is cumulative in the power's description, then you have no permission to stack the effect and the power will resolve without stacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An example:
Say you have a spell that places a boulder on the opposing players head. It casts and resolves. Now say you can somehow cast this again, but:
The spell never gives permission to stack:
-not being able to stack the second boulder rolls off and lays of the ground beside you opponent, not squishing him flat.

Or

The spell's description states the additional boulders will stack on top of the first:
-The second boulder lands on top of the first, adding it's wieght and smashing your opponent to the ground. A third boulder is cast and you'r opponent is removed from play as he is little more than a red smear underneath some large rocks.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

part of resolution rules is that different powers are cumulative.

you are not just resolving a power, you are resolving it cumulatively, which is only in the rules for different powers.

you can resolve the power, without it being cumulative, and with it being cumulative.

the book only has permission for different powers to be resovled cumulatively at this point, you can argue their intent is that all powers are cumulative, but its not RAW anywhere that they are,

again quote the line that permits identical powers to be cumulatively resolved,

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

you can resolve the power, without it being cumulative, and with it being cumulative.

the book only has permission for different powers to be resovled cumulatively at this point, you can argue their intent is that all powers are cumulative, but its not RAW anywhere that they are,

Citation pls?

There is only 1 way to resolve enfeeble, that is -1 str and -1t. If you haven't applied those modifiers despite expending warp charge, passing the psychic test, and DTW, you have broken a rule. Once a unit is enfeebled, it is still a legal target for another enfeeble, and nothing in any rule explicitly says the unit is not subject to a further -1/-1.

"Only different powers..." does not exist in the rulebook.

It really does just come down to exactly what GW means by "different" in this context. Both readings have logical weight behind them, and can both be equally resolved as true.

It has to be FAQed; there is no argument that's going to be definitive either way.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

Intent absolutely needs to be considered. Strict RAW if bloody useless. By RAW Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes.

cryhavok wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

I have. I have multiple times. You have not shown explicit permission to be cumulative. Accusing me of doing what you are doing, and accusing me of breaking forum tenents sems like it might be doing exactly that. So I am done with discussing this with you. You are wrong, and you resorting to personal attack makes you seem rather trollish. Also- reported.

reported for asking you to comply with the tenets of the forum, as we have done? Amusing.

You have failed to provide a single, solitary rule that allows you to not resolve the power.

You are claiming you are resolving the power, wwithout actually resolving the power. The resolution of the power is the targets Toughness and Strength are reduced by 1. You are failing to do reduce S and T, have failed to provide a single rule allowing you to NOT resolve the power, and are handwaving away this lack of a rules argument by claiming that something which is entirely silent on the matter somehow has an effect.

There is no personal attack in asking you to actually back up your argument with some rules, as we have consistently done.

There is only one troll here.

Nos, Enfeeble says 'whilst this power is in effect..." The power is in effect whether there is seven or one instances of it in effect. There is no more reason to assume its effects stack than there is to assume that multiple cases of Furious Charge would stack.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

Intent absolutely needs to be considered. Strict RAW if bloody useless. By RAW Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes.

You'll come across this attitude on this forum a lot. Many people here don't think the rules are what GW designed and are instead = RaW. They see any attempt to understand any beyond the most literal interpretation as baffling and believe common sense is evil. They defend their god RaW despite how ludicrous it often is to do so.

I can see the potential intent but for me it is not strong enough and hence I'm on the other side of the fence. Though I am willing to discuss the actual rules not just the RaW.

Fling - enough with ignoring the tenets. "THE RULES" are defined in the rulebook. OR is that too literal for you? Taking a heading and believing it?

Crimson - again with apples and oranges comparisons. FC is written such that one or more provides +1S. Enfeeble isnt. Which we've pointed out....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - enough with ignoring the tenets. "THE RULES" are defined in the rulebook. OR is that too literal for you? Taking a heading and believing it?

So what is the right section of forums to discuss rules as they're actually applied while playing the game, instead of intellectual grandstanding?

Crimson - again with apples and oranges comparisons. FC is written such that one or more provides +1S. Enfeeble isnt. Which we've pointed out....

Why? "Model with this special rule..." vs. "Whilst this power is in effect..." Seems pretty similar to me.

Because "Whilst this power is in effect..." The underlined refers to that specific casting of Enfeeble.

Furious charge states "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

So two totally separate things, as if a model has FC 5 times it still has FC, and "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

This is very different from this power of enfeeble being in effect, as it could have another enfeeble in effect as well, and the :This" in the enfeeble wording refers to that particular casting of enfeeble.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because "Whilst this power is in effect..." The underlined refers to that specific casting of Enfeeble.

Furious charge states "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

So two totally separate things, as if a model has FC 5 times it still has FC, and "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

This is very different from this power of enfeeble being in effect, as it could have another enfeeble in effect as well, and the :This" in the enfeeble wording refers to that particular casting of enfeeble.

You just decided that based on nothing. I could just as well argue that 'this' in FC means that particular instance of FC, and 'this' in Enfeeble refers to the power in general. (I do not actually argue the former but I do argue the latter.)

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because "Whilst this power is in effect..." The underlined refers to that specific casting of Enfeeble.

Furious charge states "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

So two totally separate things, as if a model has FC 5 times it still has FC, and "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

This is very different from this power of enfeeble being in effect, as it could have another enfeeble in effect as well, and the :This" in the enfeeble wording refers to that particular casting of enfeeble.

You just decided that based on nothing. I could just as well argue that 'this' in FC means that particular instance of FC, and 'this' in Enfeeble refers to the power in general. (I do not actually argue the former but I do argue the latter.)

Actually context decided that, I did not.