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.

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're refusing to resolve the power again...

Man, could you please cite a rule for once?

Jeffersonian already did. If it alters characteristic, it has to be wargear or special rule.

Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.
A Psychic Power is neither. It has permission granted by the psychic power rules on page 68 to resolve the power.
How do we resolve the power? We apply -1 S and T.

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.
A Psychic Power is neither. It has permission granted by the psychic power rules on page 68 to resolve the power.
How do we resolve the power? We apply -1 S and T.

QFT

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.

Those are rules that cover how modifiers work. You have to refer to them to apply any modifiers.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.

Those are rules that cover how modifiers work. You have to refer to them to apply any modifiers.

Basic < Advanced.
The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

rigeld2 wrote:

The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

Why you think Enfeeble rules are not special rules? How you determine which rules are 'special rules' as meant here, and which are just additional rules?

I pulled this one in the other thread that got locked, but to those of you that argue that stat modifiers don't stack unless we are given specific permission, consider this:

An unsaved wound confers a permanent -1 Wound stat modifier to a character. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. This is stated on page 15.

But as far as I can tell, there's nowhere in the rulebook where we are granted explicit permission for the negative wound modifier incurred from unsaved wounds to stack - I can't even find an example where a character suffers two wounds. Does this mean that multi-wound models cannot be killed? Because that's essentially what you are arguing.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

Why you think Enfeeble rules are not special rules? How you determine which rules are 'special rules' as meant here, and which are just additional rules?

Page 32 "What Special Rules Do I Have?"
Psychic Powers are not Special Rules, but sometimes grant them. And it's very clear when a Special Rule is granted.
In this case it is not granting a Special Rule, but a modifier.

So for example, Exarch Powers are not special rules?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

Why you think Enfeeble rules are not special rules? How you determine which rules are 'special rules' as meant here, and which are just additional rules?

Special Rules are defined in pages 32-43. Is Enfeeble listed there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So for example, Exarch Powers are not special rules?

I'm not familiar with the Eldar codex.
But codexes can grant extra special rules because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

rigeld2 wrote:

Special Rules are defined in pages 32-43. Is Enfeeble listed there?

So anything that is not listed there or specifically called special rule is not a special rule?

I'm not familiar with the Eldar codex.
But codexes can grant extra special rules because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

Exarch Powers are not called special rules. You can also take up to two of them and nothing preventing taking the same power multiple times*. By your logic, they stack.
(*may take up to two of the following...)

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Special Rules are defined in pages 32-43. Is Enfeeble listed there?

So anything that is not listed there or specifically called special rule is not a special rule?

... Yes, that's correct.

I'm not familiar with the Eldar codex.
But codexes can grant extra special rules because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

Exarch Powers are not called special rules. You can also take up to two of them and nothing preventing taking the same power multiple times*. By your logic, they stack.
(*may take up to two of the following...)

I'll take your word for it. Sure, they stack provided there are no other rules applicable.
And?

rigeld2 wrote:

I'll take your word for it. Sure, they stack provided there are no other rules applicable.
And?

Because I'm pretty sure that no one plays that way.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'll take your word for it. Sure, they stack provided there are no other rules applicable.
And?

Because I'm pretty sure that no one plays that way.

And that matters in a discussion about the rules as they're written why?
Especially when it's been brought up (multiple times) that most people actually do allow Enfeeble to stack?

Do you have a rule to cite that's applicable or are you just trolling now and refusing to admit you're wrong?

Also, you might not have quoted all of the Exarch powers stuff correctly (actually, I know you didn't since you only quoted 8 words) so I can't say for sure if people are playing incorrectly or not. Again, not like it matters.

rigeld, If you are curious, the wording for all models who can take Exarch powers is as follows:

The [model] may take up to two of the following Exarch powers:
XXX.........XX pts
XXX.........XX pts
XXX.........XX pts

This whole discussion is about a priori assumptions. You seem to think that a priori assumption is that things stack unless specifically forbidden from doing so. My a priori assumption is that they do not stack unless allowed. Neither of us can cite direct rule saying either, as such does not exist. We can merely point areas of rules that seems to imply that writers had one of these a priori assumptions.

You cannot cite a rule that says psychic powers always stack, nor you can cite rule that says that resolving a power automatically causes stacking. You think that you don't have to, because you already have made a priori assumption that things always stack.

And are there any other rules regarding Exarch powers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
This whole discussion is about a priori assumptions. You seem to think that a priori assumption is that things stack unless specifically forbidden from doing so. My a priori assumption is that they do not stack unless allowed. Neither of us can cite direct rule saying either, as such does not exist. We can merely point areas of rules that seems to imply that writers had one of these a priori assumptions.

No, that's not the assumption I've made. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You cannot cite a rule that says psychic powers always stack, nor you can cite rule that says that resolving a power automatically causes stacking. You think that you don't have to, because you already have made a priori assumption that things always stack.

Incorrect.

Basic math supports stacking.
Modifiers use basic math (including pemdas).
Permission to cast power.
Permission to resolve power (which requires applying -1 S and T).
Permission is not denied anywhere.

I've made literally zero assumptions. Everything there is absolutely supported. No matter how many straw men you've thrown up (which I've provided rules answers for) you've failed to prove your interpretation.

rigeld2 wrote:
And are there any other rules regarding Exarch powers?

No, besides the powers themselves. Full rules text of Crushing Blow for example is 'This model has +1 Strength.' This would clearly stack under your interpretation, yet no one assumes it does. It seems that the writers assume that same things do not stack unless specifically allowed.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And are there any other rules regarding Exarch powers?

No, besides the powers themselves. Full rules text of Crushing Blow for example is 'This model has +1 Strength.' This would clearly stack under your interpretation, yet no one assumes it does. It seems that the writers assume that same things do not stack unless specifically allowed.

Wait -

"No one assumes it does" automatically means "the writers assume..."? That's interesting - you have an inside idea as to what the writers think!

And I'll leave it to you to figure out the difference between "has +1 Strength" and "suffers a ... penalty".
Hint: one stacks and the other doesn't.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And are there any other rules regarding Exarch powers?

No, besides the powers themselves. Full rules text of Crushing Blow for example is 'This model has +1 Strength.' This would clearly stack under your interpretation, yet no one assumes it does. It seems that the writers assume that same things do not stack unless specifically allowed.

Well are you allowed to take crushing blow twice on the same model?

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Well are you allowed to take crushing blow twice on the same model?

There's nothing forbidding it.

 Crimson wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Well are you allowed to take crushing blow twice on the same model?

There's nothing forbidding it.

Yes there is. The book allows the exarch to take up to two of the exarch powers. Taking the same one twice is not allowed.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Yes there is. The book allows the exarch to take up to two of the exarch powers. Taking the same one twice is not allowed.

Up to two. Why they have to be different? Tau Commander can take 'up to four' weapons, and can take the same weapon multiple times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

And I'll leave it to you to figure out the difference between "has +1 Strength" and "suffers a ... penalty".
Hint: one stacks and the other doesn't.

So if two separate and different sources say 'has +X (stat)' they do not stack?

So Eldar Psychic power Drain would not stack either with itself or any power with similar wording because it says "...all models in the target unit have -1 WS and I', while Enfeeble would stack because it uses word 'suffer?'

 Crimson wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Yes there is. The book allows the exarch to take up to two of the exarch powers. Taking the same one twice is not allowed.

Up to two. Why they have to be different? Tau Commander can take 'up to four' weapons, and can take the same weapon multiple times.

Because (IIRC) the tau dex gives specific permission for models to take duplicate weapons. If I held out a chocolate bar and a biscuit, and said "take up to two of these", you can't take the chocolate twice.

rigeld2 wrote:

Permission to resolve power (which requires applying -1 S and T).

This is your assumption. Pretty much all powers that could in theory stack are worded "whilst this power is in effect..." or "as long as this power is in effect..." or something similar.

You assume 'this' refers to the specific instance of the power instead to that power more generally. If we assume the latter, it means: 'Whilst Enfeeble is in effect the target unit suffers..." In that case it would not matter how many Enfeebles are in effect on the unit, as long as it is affected by enfeeble, the results are the same, no matter how many individual instances of the power are on them. (This would of course also mean that different powers would stack, making reminding about that specific fact eminently reasonable.)

This by the way follows the wording logic of most special rules or wargear, which usually say something like: "Unit/model with this..." which precludes stacking




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Because (IIRC) the tau dex gives specific permission for models to take duplicate weapons.

It doesn't.

 Crimson wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Because (IIRC) the tau dex gives specific permission for models to take duplicate weapons.

It doesn't.

No, but the FAQ does give permission to take multiple of the same weapon without it being twin-linked.

 Happyjew wrote:

No, but the FAQ does give permission to take multiple of the same weapon without it being twin-linked.

I know. But it is not errata, merely a clarification. With wording being similar, Eldar can also take multiples of the same Exarch Power.

rigeld2 wrote:

Basic math supports stacking.
Modifiers use basic math (including pemdas).
Permission to cast power.
Permission to resolve power (which requires applying -1 S and T).
Permission is not denied anywhere.

I've made literally zero assumptions. Everything there is absolutely supported. No matter how many straw men you've thrown up (which I've provided rules answers for) you've failed to prove your interpretation.

Was going to leave it alone but this.... lemme fix it for ya.

Stacking supports basic math.
Modifiers use basic math if they stack (including pemdas).
Permission to cast power.
Permission to resolve power (which applies -1 S and T).
Permission is not given some powers to stack.

That these powers by default work in a 1+1=2 manor is assuming that they are cumulative. That is absolutely an assumption. Basic addition/subtraction does not work on non-cumulative things and ceases to function. IE, 1+1=1

Cumulative: Further application/use = increased effect
Non-cumulative: Further application/use = no further effect

Your saying your permitted because of basic addition when whether or not basic addition applies is at the core of the debate.

Math, and the Modifiers section that uses basic math tells us that it is not an assumption.

The BRB does not have to say that 1+1=2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this, and, as per the Modifiers section of the BRB basic math applies.

Abandon - so you are assuming that maths is not followed?

Page and graph to support your assertion. We have pages that show your assertion to be untrue, however it would be good for you to actually provide some ruels

"Stacking" is a totally redundant term here.