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.

EDIT: See post #4 for a more specific description of my question and a summation of the current arguements for and against.

In a permissive ruleset, if the rules give permission (to do something) to three things, can anything else do that something without explicit permission to do it?

I believe the answer is no the other things can't, but if I am wrong I would like to know.

If there is general permission granted elsewhere, then yes. Otherwise you are ignoring permission with no reason

I'm guessing this is a thinly veiled dig at psychic powers stacking?

cryhavok wrote:
In a permissive ruleset, if the rules give permission (to do something) to three things, can anything else do that something without explicit permission to do it?

I believe the answer is no the other things can't, but if I am wrong I would like to know.

Your question is to vague to even answer in generalities.

If the rules give permission to what? What the 'three things' are can make all the difference.

In other words, your question as written makes no sense...statements made in parenthesis should be non-consequential to the sentence, but your sentence is not written that way, so I can't tell what you're trying to ask.

Its a poor attempt to try to deflect from the utter lack of rules cryhavok has posted in the Psychic powers thread, by positing a meaningless scenario to try to garner some support - ANY support - for the contention that you can resolve a power without, actually, resolving it.

Yes this is in response to that thread. I posted a general question because I wanted a general answer. It seems to me that some of the people I am arguing with do not have the same understanding of how permissive rules work. As the thread is six pages long, I thought to post this to see if I was the one not understanding things.

Specifically the BRB gives general permission for rules, wargear, and different ppsychic powers to stack.

My assertion is that, this being a permissive ruleset, anything that is not one of those three things needs explicit permission in it's description in order to be cumulative.

My opponents argument is that being told to resolve the power equates to permission for it's effects to be cumulative.

My opponets other assertion is that the rules giving permission to those three things, does not deny permission for everything else to be cumulative.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and then there is Nos's belief that if it does't stack, it hasn'resolved, so in order for it to resolve it has to stack.

In a permissive ruleset game you can inherently do nothing, unless told you can.

General permission: psychic powers (maledictions)
1. expend warp charge
2. psychic test
3. DTW
4. resolve power

Specific restrictions to (malediction) general pwemissions:
1. psyker must be on the table at the start of the turn
2. psyker must have LoS to target
3. target must be an enemy unit
4. target must be in range

If you follow the steps given permission to cast and resolve the power, and follow the specified restrictions, you have not broken any rules.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
In a permissive ruleset game you can inherently do nothing, unless told you can.

General permission: psychic powers (maledictions)
1. expend warp charge
2. psychic test
3. DTW
4. resolve power

Specific restrictions to (malediction) general pwemissions:
1. psyker must be on the table at the start of the turn
2. psyker must have LoS to target
3. target must be an enemy unit
4. target must be in range

If you follow the steps given permission to cast and resolve the power, and follow the specified restrictions, you have not broken any rules.

You missed the specific permission, given on pg 68 (found under resolving psychic powers, again under blessings, and a third time under maledictions)for different powers to be cumulative. Because you do not address this, and nothing else in your post was in question, I am still left without all the answers I need answer. The heart of the matter is not the general steps.

Your first sentence does answer one of the arguments:
"Giving permission for different powers to being cumulative, does not deny permission for powers that are not different from being cumulative."

If you must have permission to do anything, and no permission is given for powers that are not different to be cumilative, then, assuming w40k is a permissive ruleset, powers that are not different may not be cumulative.

Why do we have another thread about this when the first one is still on the first page?

 Happyjew wrote:
Why do we have another thread about this when the first one is still on the first page?

uhm... The first on has six pages. And it devolved into accusations. I was hoping to get fresh perspectives involved rather than the same people saying the same things over and over.

Permission to be cumulative is inherent in the resolution. If you do not subtract 1 upon the first resolution, then subtract 1 upon the second resolution, you haven't resolved both powers. No rules prohibit the resolution of multiple enfeebles upon the same target.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Permission to be cumulative is inherent in the resolution. If you do not subtract 1 upon the first resolution, then subtract 1 upon the second resolution, you haven't resolved both powers.

This assumes that being resolved without being cumulative, is not being resolved at all. If this is true can anything be not cumulative?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No rules prohibit the resolution of multiple enfeebles upon the same target.

You are right, but a malediction can be resolved cumulatively or not cumulatively, and still have been resolved. Different maledictions are given permission to be cumulative, in the rules for resolving psychic powers. Psychic powers that are not different are not given that permission, and are then resolved not cumulatively.

And as a note, I'm not talking about just enfeeble, but any malediction or blessing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Permission to be cumulative is inherent in the resolution. If you do not subtract 1 upon the first resolution, then subtract 1 upon the second resolution, you haven't resolved both powers.

This assumes that being resolved without being cumulative, is not being resolved at all. If this is true can anything be not cumulative?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No rules prohibit the resolution of multiple enfeebles upon the same target.

You are right, but a malediction can be resolved cumulatively or not cumulatively, and still have been resolved. Different maledictions are given permission to be cumulative, in the rules for resolving psychic powers. Psychic powers that are not different are not given that permission, and are then resolved not cumulatively. Please explain to me why a power can not be resolved in a not cumulative manner, as I just don't get it.

And as a note, I'm not talking about just enfeeble, but any malediction or blessing.

cryhavok wrote:
This assumes that being resolved without being cumulative, is not being resolved at all. If this is true can anything be not cumulative?

If you get hit twice with the same power that instructs you to lower a stat by X, then in order to resolve both powers you have to apply the negative modifier twice. The rules would specifically have to state that they are not cumulative in my opinion. hyv3mynd is right, the cumulative effect is inherent in the resolution. There is no assumption involved. I think it is you who assume a restriction that is unfounded.

That said, the bit in the rulebook about different maledictions being cumulative does muddy things up and seems to insinuate that identical maledictions aren't cumulative. But that is just an insinuation, and not strong enough to stand on it's own I think.

As above.

You are given permission to resolve the power

You are not told to not resolve the power

You apply -1T. If you do not apply a second -1T, you have broken a rule.

Again: the rules for psychic powers give permission for powers to resolve (by definition, or will you argue this withh a nonexistent rule?). Nothing restricts how they resolve but the powers wording itself - by their nature certain powers have no effect from multiple castings, while others will do.

It is amazingly simple. You are making up a requirement for a rule that doesnt exist, and crying foul that people cannot fidn this rule.

tgjensen wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
This assumes that being resolved without being cumulative, is not being resolved at all. If this is true can anything be not cumulative?

If you get hit twice with the same power that instructs you to lower a stat by X, then in order to resolve both powers you have to apply the negative modifier twice. The rules would specifically have to state that they are not cumulative in my opinion. hyv3mynd is right, the cumulative effect is inherent in the resolution. There is no assumption involved. I think it is you who assume a restriction that is unfounded.

That said, the bit in the rulebook about different maledictions being cumulative does muddy things up and seems to insinuate that identical maledictions aren't cumulative. But that is just an insinuation, and not strong enough to stand on it's own I think.

The key word there is 'Modifiers', which are by default cumulative. Unless specified otherwise they continue to be cumulative.

cryhavok wrote:
Yes this is in response to that thread. I posted a general question because I wanted a general answer. It seems to me that some of the people I am arguing with do not have the same understanding of how permissive rules work. As the thread is six pages long, I thought to post this to see if I was the one not understanding things.

Specifically the BRB gives general permission for rules, wargear, and different ppsychic powers to stack.

My assertion is that, this being a permissive ruleset, anything that is not one of those three things needs explicit permission in it's description in order to be cumulative.

My opponents argument is that being told to resolve the power equates to permission for it's effects to be cumulative.

My opponets other assertion is that the rules giving permission to those three things, does not deny permission for everything else to be cumulative.

The problem with what you're saying is that anytime rules involve numbers and math, there are pre-existing rules for mathematics naturally understood in the world. So if you just tell someone that there is a number and then you add one to that number and then add another 1 to that number, the basics of mathematics dictate that they are cumulative.

So by default, before you even enter the world of a game and permissive rules, people naturally understand numbers added together to be cumulative.

Therefore, even within a set of game rules, by default it is understood by most people that any numbers added or subtracted are going to be cumulative unless specified otherwise. The fact that the rules specify certain situations as being cumulative does not change this basic fact.

So really, the way it works is that with a game, you should always assume that if you have a numerical value and multiple things are added onto that, they would always be cumulative unless specified otherwise.

The problem, of course, is that GW has a bad habit of not being consistent and sometimes writing as though things are cumulative unless specified otherwise and other times acting as though things are not cumulative unless specified otherwise (the latter position being naturally wrong for the reason explained above).


So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules alos have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

 yakface wrote:
So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules alos have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

Exactly what yakface said.

Just like there is no need to define Single, or Reduced in the BRB (Because the English Language defines those words), you do not have to say that 4-1-1 =2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this, even in a permissive ruleset this is not needed.

 yakface wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Yes this is in response to that thread. I posted a general question because I wanted a general answer. It seems to me that some of the people I am arguing with do not have the same understanding of how permissive rules work. As the thread is six pages long, I thought to post this to see if I was the one not understanding things.

Specifically the BRB gives general permission for rules, wargear, and different ppsychic powers to stack.

My assertion is that, this being a permissive ruleset, anything that is not one of those three things needs explicit permission in it's description in order to be cumulative.

My opponents argument is that being told to resolve the power equates to permission for it's effects to be cumulative.

My opponets other assertion is that the rules giving permission to those three things, does not deny permission for everything else to be cumulative.

The problem with what you're saying is that anytime rules involve numbers and math, there are pre-existing rules for mathematics naturally understood in the world. So if you just tell someone that there is a number and then you add one to that number and then add another 1 to that number, the basics of mathematics dictate that they are cumulative.

So by default, before you even enter the world of a game and permissive rules, people naturally understand numbers added together to be cumulative.

Therefore, even within a set of game rules, by default it is understood by most people that any numbers added or subtracted are going to be cumulative unless specified otherwise. The fact that the rules specify certain situations as being cumulative does not change this basic fact.

So really, the way it works is that with a game, you should always assume that if you have a numerical value and multiple things are added onto that, they would always be cumulative unless specified otherwise.

The problem, of course, is that GW has a bad habit of not being consistent and sometimes writing as though things are cumulative unless specified otherwise and other times acting as though things are not cumulative unless specified otherwise (the latter position being naturally wrong for the reason explained above).


So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules alos have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

Okay, I can work with this, (a few other responses helped me as well). Thank you.

Also I seriously dislike GW editors.

The problem I see is the BRB does state the benefits from the same ability are not cumulative unless otherwise noted, and that only benefits from different psychic powers are cumulative unless otherwise noted. Both statements mean the same thing: only benefits from different sources are cumulative without specific permission.

In the case of a single psychic power being applied multiple times to the same target, we have to look at the power in question's rules for language that states that multiple castings of that power stacks in order for the results of that power to be cumulative because general permission has already been denied per the BRB. Simply put, in order for multiple castings of a power's benefit to stack, the power must state in its rules that it is cumulative. If it does not, then the power does not stack with itself per the BRB.

So, does the power in question contain language that specifically give it permission to stack with multiple castings?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The problem I see is the BRB does state the benefits from the same ability are not cumulative unless otherwise noted, and that only benefits from different psychic powers are cumulative unless otherwise noted. Both statements mean the same thing: only benefits from different sources are cumulative without specific permission.

In the case of a single psychic power being applied multiple times to the same target, we have to look at the power in question's rules for language that states that multiple castings of that power stacks in order for the results of that power to be cumulative because general permission has already been denied per the BRB. Simply put, in order for multiple castings of a power's benefit to stack, the power must state in its rules that it is cumulative. If it does not, then the power does not stack with itself per the BRB.

So, does the power in question contain language that specifically give it permission to stack with multiple castings?

SJ

Second half of the first sentence is false. The BRB does not use the phrase "only".

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
, and that only benefits from different psychic powers are cumulative unless otherwise noted.

Citation required. This phrasing does not exist anywhere in the rule book.

I've cited it in enough threads, no need to in this one.

SJ

That's fine as long as you acknowledge you are making false claims.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I've cited it in enough threads, no need to in this one.

SJ

I've never seen that phrase cited.
A citation would be interesting since it literally doesn't exist in the book.

Please don't deliberately lie to make your point.

I see people clinging to "resolve" as a means to apply the efffect of the power.

Is there no power in the rule set that can be cast on a valid target yet the power fails ?

isn't that process of determining outcome the resolving ?

If anyone's keeping score here I'm firmly on the side of stacking. I have read both this and the previous thread and the argument FOR stacking RAW is pretty clear to me. IMO stacking is probably also allowed RAI. (But obviously I have no proof that they intended stacking, it's just my gut feeling, and fluff-wise it would make more sense.)

kambien wrote:
I see people clinging to "resolve" as a means to apply the efffect of the power.

Is there no power in the rule set that can be cast on a valid target yet the power fails ?

isn't that process of determining outcome the resolving ?

Resolving, per the BRB, requires you to follow the powers description for what to do. A witchfire power could miss but still be resolved correctly.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
I see people clinging to "resolve" as a means to apply the efffect of the power.

Is there no power in the rule set that can be cast on a valid target yet the power fails ?

isn't that process of determining outcome the resolving ?

Resolving, per the BRB, requires you to follow the powers description for what to do. A witchfire power could miss but still be resolved correctly.

there a page on the term resolving , or could it be quoted since i don't have the brb currently

kambien wrote:
there a page on the term resolving , or could it be quoted since i don't have the brb currently

Page 67
"Resolve Psychic Power"
It's step 5 in the sequence "Manifesting Psychic Powers"

RESOLVE PSYCHIC POWER
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.

i have to disagree with this statement.

"Resolving, per the BRB, requires you to follow the powers description for what to do."

unless what grendell listed has a brb definition of resolving ( currently trying to find that page via different medium)

resolving should be determining the outcome of all factors involed should it not ?