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:

You're trying to use one situation to justify another when they're not even remotely comparable.

They're comparable enough that is unlikely that the writers used word 'different' to mean, eh, different thing in the two cases.
Many people advanced the notion that 'different power' actually meant 'another power.' This shows that such interpretation is unlikely.

I know this is not enough for RAW-über-alles people, but to me it shows designer intent rather clearly.

That's the problem with intent. We can only guess at it.
After all my years studying computer programming at college/university my interpretation of "different" is... well different.
Takes a lot to make something the same. Different instances of the same power are very different to me.
Two identical cars are different cars, especially if their owners are different.

So you're quite right, in a RAW discussion a person's interpretation of designers intent has no bearing.

I think Intent has to be considered, especially in the case of a vague rules. Wraithguard shooting and all that.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As to the recent pages added to this thread, the 'Stacker' position appears to be based on RAI as they repeatedly state that their position is based on an implied rule that is not written anywhere in the BRB, yet deny posted RAW to the contrary. Good show!

The 'Non-Stacker' position remains that permission to stack must to given per RAW before an effect can be cumulative, which actually is supported by RAW and cited several times.

Either you got these two paragraphs mixed up, or you haven't read this thread.
The "Stacker" side has absolutely been quoting rules, don't know how you can say there's been no RAW posted. To be fair both sides have, and posts like this only serve to drag a good natured discussion into the dirt.

It would be better if you contributed to the discussion rather than declare falsehoods (since you're against the word 'lies' while posting... Err.. lies).

Okay, try this: the assumption that basic math overrides the BRB is false due to the fact that the BRB does define how math works within the rule set. Specifically, we are told on pg. 2 that we add, subtract, multiply, divide, and replace, in that order. Further, on pg. 32, we are told that all modifiers from the same source are concurrent (unless otherwise noted), while modifiers from different sources are cumulative. On pg. 68, we are reminded that the effects from different sources are again cumulative, while modifiers from the same source require permission to be cumulative.

In essence, GW has defined how mathematics works in their rule set, negating 4-1-1-1 if permission is not given, replacing it with 4+(-1, -1, -1). It does not matter if you agree with this or not, what matters is that if you choose not to follow it, you are in "how you would play it" country, not "rules as written" country. Please prove me wrong by citing actual rules rather than implied rules, minus the snide remarks.

SJ

jeffersonian wrote:
As to the recent pages added to this thread, the 'Stacker' position appears to be based on RAI as they repeatedly state that their position is based on an implied rule that is not written anywhere in the BRB, yet deny posted RAW to the contrary. Good show!

So, you're reading a different thread to this one then?

Because we have absolutely, reepeatedly shown the RAW position on this.

jeffersonian wrote:The 'Non-Stacker' position remains that permission to stack must to given per RAW before an effect can be cumulative, which actually is supported by RAW and cited several times.

Actually it hasnt been, which is kind of the point. No rules, anywhere, have been cited that supports the no-stack. None.

If you could avoid declarations that are falsehoods that would be helpful, as your last post did absolutely nothing to contribute to this thread (also, your notion of what is legal and isnt is amusing, but irrelevant)

 Crimson wrote:
I think Intent has to be considered, especially in the case of a vague rules. Wraithguard shooting and all that.

But we simply can't know the intent. Only guess at it. And my guess is very different to yours.
Admittedly the Wraithguard one is quite obvious.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I think Intent has to be considered, especially in the case of a vague rules. Wraithguard shooting and all that.

But we simply can't know the intent. Only guess at it. And my guess is very different to yours.
Admittedly the Wraithguard one is quite obvious.

Careful, you will be told it is the same guess

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Okay, try this: the assumption that basic math overrides the BRB is false due to the fact that the BRB does define how math works within the rule set. Specifically, we are told on pg. 2 that we add, subtract, multiply, divide, and replace, in that order. Further, on pg. 32, we are told that all modifiers from the same source are concurrent (unless otherwise noted), while modifiers from different sources are cumulative. On pg. 68, we are reminded that the effects from different sources are again cumulative, while modifiers from the same source require permission to be cumulative.

In essence, GW has defined how mathematics works in their rule set, negating 4-1-1-1 if permission is not given, replacing it with 4+(-1, -1, -1). It does not matter if you agree with this or not, what matters is that if you choose not to follow it, you are in "how you would play it" country, not "rules as written" country. Please prove me wrong by citing actual rules rather than implied rules, minus the snide remarks.

SJ

Actually the rulebook uses basic maths. It doesn't define it.
The rulebook doesn't say how -1 works, but we recognise the symbol and the meaning behind it.
It uses a maths symbol, so we use the meaning of that symbol.

Grendel, just on your view of different's meaning. Using a more formal definition is could be an issue and introduce bias. The guys that "write" this game use a more colloquial English, hell in my background "different" is just as nuanced (polymorphs are fun) but if we were using formal language we'd all have engineer flavour 40k beside humanities flavour 40k with "we're 11 and don't get it" 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're trying to use one situation to justify another when they're not even remotely comparable.

They're comparable enough that is unlikely that the writers used word 'different' to mean, eh, different thing in the two cases.
Many people advanced the notion that 'different power' actually meant 'another power.' This shows that such interpretation is unlikely.

I know this is not enough for RAW-über-alles people, but to me it shows designer intent rather clearly.

It also demonstrates that they could have inserted the required sentence if they wanted it to.
One section (USRs) has an absolute denial. Another does not. You're trying to assume that they just left it out and cleverly left it to the reader to deduce.
That's ludicrous. The fact that it exists in the USR section is supportive of the intent being for Enfeeble to stack.

So, to summarise:

we have an argument based on supposed intent, and not rules - that is the "no stack". The only rules argument made is that somehow a reminder isnt a reminder, but an implied restriction

On the other side you have an argument based on the rulebook, supported through pages of rules citations, which is not based on divining supposed "intent", and which is consistent with how the rulebook presents maths and logic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


we have an argument based on supposed intent, and not rules - that is the "no stack". The only rules argument made is that somehow a reminder isnt a reminder, but an implied restriction

Reminder about what? It is only sensible reminder if we indeed assume that same powers do not stack. Otherwise the sentence is nonsensical.

And that's not the only argument, even though you like to pretend it is. You also pretend that applying penalties is the direct result of successfully casting Enfeeble. It is not. Result is that 'Enfeeble is in effect.' And while it is in effect, cerain penalties result. Just like with Dominate (and just like with having Waaagh! Banner.) You have failed to show why multiple instances of Enfeeble being in effect would anyway affect the penalties, and even more bafflingly why Dominate does not stack the same way you believe Enfeeble to stack.

In your opinion it is only a reminder under those circumstances. Otherwise it is a reminder that powers can stack.

Resolving enfeeble tells you to reduce S and T. Not doing so brings us back to your first attempted argument - that you dont have to reduce S and T to resolve the power. Which remains a nonsense argument.

Dominate and Enfeeble have different wordings and results. It is baffling why you keep trying to equate the two.

I also didnt say it was the only argument, just the closest to a rules argument the no-stack have managed - to mangle a sentence which is additional in nature into an apparent implied restriction. There you go again with managing to alter sentences to mean different things than was actually stated. Or are you now claiming to know my intent, alongside your claims on knowing the studios?

How about the wording of the powers themselves?
Of the brb power enfeeble is the only one that can stack with itself by your logic. The rest are either witchfire powers or give USRs (which cannot stack) or are set modifiers.
The chaos marine powers all state they stack or are witchfire. So there is a reminder in there that enfeeble can stack with itself because it's on the only power that could do so?

The mathematics is the hard sell it seems but it is only at the end that we judge the matrix of items and rules that give the modifiers and find out the result. While I agree mostly with yakface that basic maths is implicit in the rules, the jump from we have a power cast twice to "this power is in effect" works to give enfeeble a stack but dominate doesn't, doesn't seem to follow logic and crystalise the logical jump that 2 enfeebles equals -2 to the stats.

Now this bit of dogma "Resolve the power as per the instruction in the entry." Just because you move to resolve doesn't always equate with the power's effect comes into play. Ecstatic seizures cast on a vehicle for example.

Enfeeble says "Whilst the power is in effect" I don't see any reason why it is any different from Dominate. Is the power in effect? Yes or no.
I throw two apples in a jar, is there an apple in the jar?
The binary issue of in effect isn't a problem when resolving the rules, there are many rules in the game that are worded along the lines of "while x is on the board, when x has been destroyed". Yes we are told to modify a stat but the modification is dependent on a question with a binary yes or no answer. If x than y, not if 2x than 2y.

We all remember the RAW debate for hull points and drop pods don't we. Because the logic there was flawless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
In your opinion it is only a reminder under those circumstances. Otherwise it is a reminder that powers can stack.

Why remind in the middle of general rules of resolving psychic powers that specifically different powers do stack? If all powers stack, that sentence is utterly absurd.

Resolving enfeeble tells you to reduce S and T.

No it doesn't. That is the result of Enfeeble being in effect.

Dominate and Enfeeble have different wordings and results. It is baffling why you keep trying to equate the two.

Both powers essentially are: Whilst the power is in effect target unit suffers a penalty. Do you think that because other penalty is a modifier and other is not it is somehow different? How, why?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
We all remember the RAW debate for hull points and drop pods don't we. Because the logic there was flawless.

It actually was. It's also irrelevant.

Crimson -and, again, you are trying to handwave two different powers with different triggers and wording, into somehow being the same.

They arent

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson -and, again, you are trying to handwave two different powers with different triggers and wording, into somehow being the same.

They arent

Not convincing. I have told you how they are similar. Other people are noticed the similarity too. You stating that they're different doesn't make it so.

Nos, the 'Non-Stacker' side of the debate have cited rules on pages 2, 32, 68, and 419, demonstrating that multiple applications of the same rule are not cumulative without specific permission. The 'Stackers', on the other hand point to permission to resolve equating to permission to be cumulative, stating the this permission is implied via basic mathematics.

Where are the rules the 'Stacker' side claim to have cited? Please cite a single rule that states multiple castings of the same psychic power are cumulative. Please do so and end this debate.

As to GW defining math, I pointed out that GW defined HOW mathematics is applied within their rule set, not that they redefined how mathematics works in general. GW has shown that modifiers are only applied via permission, permission they have in general restricted to different sources being cumulative while multiple applications from the same source is concurrent. That's advanced math, not basic math. Basic math is 1+1+2=4. Advanced math is 1+(1, 1, 1, 1)=2 when we are told to use the highest value in a set. As GW has given permission for effects from different sources to stack, while effects from multiple uses of the same source are concurrent, 4-1a-1b=2 is legal, while 4-1a-1a=2 is illegal unless "a" states it is cumulative.

Nowhere in the rules under Enfeeble on page 419 does it state the effects from Enfeeble are cumulative. Nowhere on page 68 does it state multiple castings of the same Malediction are cumulative. Nowhere on page 32 does it state the effects from multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative. Yet, on both page 32 and 68, we are told that effects from different rules are cumulative.

So, I would really like to see someone, anyone cite a non-implied rule that states multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative rather than concurrent. If you can.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, I would really like to see someone, anyone cite a non-implied rule that states multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative rather than concurrent. If you can.

Multiple modifiers on P.2, and basic Math, tell us that we "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions" P.2

Applying a -1 from one enfeeble, then not applying the second -1 from a different enfeeble is not applying "any" subtractions. It is only applying some subtractions, they tell us to apply any subtractions (Any in this case meaning all).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So, I would really like to see someone, anyone cite a non-implied rule that states multiple uses of the same rule are cumulative rather than concurrent. If you can.

Multiple modifiers on P.2, and basic Math, tell us that we "first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions" P.2

Applying a -1 from one enfeeble, then not applying the second -1 from a different enfeeble is not applying "any" subtractions. It is only applying some subtractions, they tell us to apply any subtractions (Any in this case meaning all).

Good response. How do you resolve the additional restrictions applied on pages 32 and 68?

SJ

32 isn't a restriction on Psychic Powers and 68 doesn't list a restriction.

Unless you've found one no one else has.

32 is relevant because it defines how we use the rules provide by gear, psychic powers, scenarios, and terrain.

68 is relevant because it defines which powers are cumulative and which are concurrent.

SJ

Except there are no restrictions listed on P. 32 or 68 saying that you are not able to cast two different enfeebles from two different Psykers on a single enemy unit.

Plus Enfeeble is not a special rule, nor does it grant any of the special rules listed in the BRB.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
32 is relevant because it defines how we use the rules provide by gear, psychic powers, scenarios, and terrain.

No, if defines how we use special rules. Said special rules can be granted by gear, powers, etc.
Enfeeble grants no special rules.

68 is relevant because it defines which powers are cumulative and which are concurrent.

Citation.

I see now, the crux of the issue is your misunderstanding of the rules listed on page 32. Am I to assume that you only consider USR's to be special rules?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see now, the crux of the issue is your misunderstanding of the rules listed on page 32. Am I to assume that you only consider USR's to be special rules?

SJ

We can only look at what they tell us are special rules. Anything else can not be in a permissive ruleset.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

It says special rules are one of two places, "For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order." (32) (The Special rules listed after Page 32 starting on Page 33), and "laid out in their codex" for "troops have their own unique abilities"

Enfeeble is neither of these.

It seems you are the one with the misunderstanding of what a special rule is.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see now, the crux of the issue is your misunderstanding of the rules listed on page 32. Am I to assume that you only consider USR's to be special rules?

SJ

We can only look at what they tell us are special rules. Anything else can not be in a permissive ruleset.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

It says special rules are one of two places, "For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order." (32) (The Special rules listed after Page 32 starting on Page 33), and "laid out in their codex" for "troops have their own unique abilities"

Enfeeble is neither of these.

It seems you are the one with the misunderstanding of what a special rule is.

Well, let’s look at what they tell us is “special rules” on page 32 of the BRB:

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model’s chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength …

Or the passage I’ve already posted above,

Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list …

This means that any ability, such as a psychic power, the changes how the normal game works is considered a “special rule” and therefore follows the rules listed for “special rules”.


Let’s look at Enfeeble, as listed on page 419 of the BRB:

As the psyker channels his powers, tendrils of Warp energy lash over his victims, every caress sapping vitality from their bodies.
Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24”. Whilst the power is in effect, the target suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain.

I see “fluff” text that defines the context of the power, and two (2) rules that break or bend the main game rules by applying modifiers to a model’s characteristics while also changing how that model interacts with terrain. Per page 32 of the BRB, that right there is a “special rule” granted by a psychic power. Also per page 32, the set of rules under Enfeeble are concurrent, as there is no additional wording associated with Enfeeble to inform us it is cumulative. Per page 68 of the BRB, we are again informed that multiple castings of Enfeeble are concurrent, because permission is given for different powers to stack.

Notice how I’ve been italicizing “Enfeeble”? If you've paid attention, GW italicized the power’s name at the start of each of the BRB’s listed psychic powers’ rules. This effectively defines those rules as “special rules” under that power’s name (i.e., being made abundantly clear). So yes, while the power itself is not a “special rule”, the power does grant the special rule Enfeeble on its target. And per both page 32 and page 68, multiple applications of Enfeeble are concurrent, not cumulative.

Do you know what is missing from the rules on 68, yet is clearly stated on page 32? Permission for multiple uses of the same ability to be cumulative. Omission does not equal permission.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This means that any ability, such as a psychic power, the changes how the normal game works is considered a “special rule” and therefore follows the rules listed for “special rules”

You realize that you posted no rules that actually say this right?

In all reality this quote separates Psychic powers from special rules:

Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list …

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see now, the crux of the issue is your misunderstanding of the rules listed on page 32. Am I to assume that you only consider USR's to be special rules?

SJ

No, there's more than that. The issue is, however, that page 32 calls out Psychic Powers being able to bestow special rule but also says that such powers will make it clear when that happens.

Whatever else you want to say, you can say with certainty that Enfeebled does not make that clear.
No misunderstanding on my end regardless of what you're accusing me of.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This means that any ability, such as a psychic power, the changes how the normal game works is considered a “special rule” and therefore follows the rules listed for “special rules”

You realize that you posted no rules that actually say this right?

I have cited and posted the rules in support of my argument, so you will have to a bit more specific.

In all reality this quote separates Psychic powers from special rules:

Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list …