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.

 Abandon wrote:
If your going to assert that its modifiers need to be applied for a power to resolve it's absolutely relevant.

It's not. There's a difference between not being able to because there's no T attribute to modify and your assertion that it can't stack ... Because why again? The former isn't relevant to the discussion no matter how many times you bring it up.

So you admit your just assuming they stack without basis by not actually addressing the point at all... find permission to apply additional modifiers without the pyschic powers acting cumulatively as your basis. Thus far you have indicated that they are cumulative because they are cumulative. I'm sure you understand the flaw in that line of thinking and why i do not accept it.

They are cumulative because there is no rule denying that they are cumulative.
The power has permission to resolve. It attempts to apply -1T. Cite the denial - you keep asserting it's there, but you've not proven it ever. Despite being asked repeatedly.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
While there are some pure RAW arguments, I really don't see any good faith RAI arguments for same powers stacking. Printing three times that different powers stack and specifically printing allowance for few specific powers to stack, is to me a clear enough indication that they didn't intend same powers to normally stack.

QTF unfortunately most people on this forum don't care about the actual rules and only care about RAW. It is their firm belief that the GW design team did not design the rules.

(Emphasis mine).
Do I really have to point out what is wrong with the underlined?

Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

Fling has a habit of lying about how other people look at rules.
It's the reason I have him on ignore.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

RAW are the actual rules. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

RAW are the actual rules. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Let's not get into this again. But to claim that saying "the rules are what the GW design team designed" is disingenuous is a fairly bizarre statement.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes you do. But if so please do it by PM let's not derail this thread.

RAW are the actual rules. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Let's not get into this again. But to claim that saying "the rules are what the GW design team designed" is disingenuous is a fairly bizarre statement.

Except that is not what I said.

I said your statement:

 FlingitNow wrote:
most people on this forum don't care about the actual rules and only care about RAW.

Was not correct and it is is disingenuous to say so.

The Actual rules are RAW, RAW stands for Rules as Written, thus the actual rules and RAW are interchangeable.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If your going to assert that its modifiers need to be applied for a power to resolve it's absolutely relevant.

It's not. There's a difference between not being able to because there's no T attribute to modify and your assertion that it can't stack ... Because why again? The former isn't relevant to the discussion no matter how many times you bring it up.

So you admit your just assuming they stack without basis by not actually addressing the point at all... find permission to apply additional modifiers without the pyschic powers acting cumulatively as your basis. Thus far you have indicated that they are cumulative because they are cumulative. I'm sure you understand the flaw in that line of thinking and why i do not accept it.

They are cumulative because there is no rule denying that they are cumulative.
The power has permission to resolve. It attempts to apply -1T. Cite the denial - you keep asserting it's there, but you've not proven it ever. Despite being asked repeatedly.

So we have established you don't need to apply all its effects for a power to resolve. I never said modifiers don't stack which you would know because I have said it several times if you had actually been trying to comprehend my point. I'm contesting applying any of the effects (including modifiers) of a second use of the same psychic power. Before you would even get to applying modifiers you need determine the effects of the power on the unit and I'm saying the second power has no effect because it is not cumulative with the first so when the second power resolves, nothing happens.

Two Enfeebles are not cumulative so resolving a second one does not add any modifiers nor any other additional effects.

 Abandon wrote:

You use Enfeeble on unit X 3 times
1. Non-Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of Enfeeble.
2. Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of 3 Enfeebles.

#1 Per RAW is how 'same' psychic powers work. They are not permitted to accumulate unlike different powers so they do not stack up. Find permission for them to behave that way and you get #2. Until then it does not matter how many modifiers you would get out of it, 'same' powers do not work in combination, basic math will not apply, etc. because adding an Enfeeble on top of an existing Enfeeble non-cumulatively just gets you Enfeeble. Since it is not cumulative it does not create any additional effects from further applications. In the case of Enfeeble that means no additional modifiers.

#2 You use X number of Enfeebles on a unit you get to resolve it X times and it should therefore have it's effects applied X times to the unit. This is exactly how it would work if you could prove 'same' powers are cumulative.

You are saying it's cumulative because of #2 when in fact #2 is how you handle things that are cumulative. Essentially stating that you handle it cumulatively because you that is how you handle things cumulatively. Permission to use and resolve the power twice actually says nothing about how the two uses of the power interact.

 Abandon wrote:
So we have established you don't need to apply all its effects for a power to resolve.

And that you need a reason to not apply the effects. You've failed to provide one.

Two Enfeebles are not cumulative so resolving a second one does not add any modifiers nor any other additional effects.

And of course you have evidence to back up this assertion - you haven't provided any yet, so I'll just assume you forgot to. Would you mind providing it now?

You are saying it's cumulative because of #2 when in fact #2 is how you handle things that are cumulative. Essentially stating that you handle it cumulatively because you that is how you handle things cumulatively. Permission to use and resolve the power twice actually says nothing about how the two uses of the power interact.

What happens when Enfeeble resolves? Please answer this question. It should be trivial and not require more than 1 sentence.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
So we have established you don't need to apply all its effects for a power to resolve.

And that you need a reason to not apply the effects. You've failed to provide one.

Two Enfeebles are not cumulative so resolving a second one does not add any modifiers nor any other additional effects.

And of course you have evidence to back up this assertion - you haven't provided any yet, so I'll just assume you forgot to. Would you mind providing it now?

You are saying it's cumulative because of #2 when in fact #2 is how you handle things that are cumulative. Essentially stating that you handle it cumulatively because you that is how you handle things cumulatively. Permission to use and resolve the power twice actually says nothing about how the two uses of the power interact.

What happens when Enfeeble resolves? Please answer this question. It should be trivial and not require more than 1 sentence.

Reason: Not cumulative with existing effect.

Permissive rule set. You need permission to treat things cumulatively as the BRB does in fact assert what is cumulative.

An overly general question for a very specific situation so I can only sum it up in a similar nature in one sentence.
>>>It applies what effects it is allowed to.<<<
What was the point of asking that question? I've already covered this. In the case of a second use of the same power, nothing is permitted to happen because they are not cumulative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Without the circular reasoning, please tell us what makes them act cumulatively?

And permission to resolve the power by accumulating has been given - it is a modifier, and page 2 tells you that youu follow the normal rules of maths when applying modifiers.

It is a bizarre idea of "RAW" to deny that the permission is there, and point to reminders elsewhere to create a non-existent additional requirement.

If you are told to add 1 twice, please explain why page 2 does not result in +2. With actual rules, for once.

Was not correct and it is is disingenuous to say so.

The Actual rules are RAW, RAW stands for Rules as Written, thus the actual rules and RAW are interchangeable.

I've sent you a PM to explain why RAW and RAI are not interchangeable as you claim here I don't want to derail this thread.

 Abandon wrote:

An overly general question for a very specific situation so I can only sum it up in a similar nature in one sentence.
>>>It applies what effects it is allowed to.<<<
What was the point of asking that question? I've already covered this. In the case of a second use of the same power, nothing is permitted to happen because they are not cumulative.

And where is there a restriction on what effects it is allowed to apply if it's the second casting?
Enfeeble attempts to add -1T. Is there any rule covering what happens when adding more than one modifier?

Pg. 2 tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers as a general rule.

Pg. 32 informs us that when abilities change or bend general rules, specific restrictions are followed which includes the statement that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission found in individual abilities. Further, psychic powers are listed as falling under these rules.

Pg. 68 reminds us that modifiers from different powers are cumulative, and that specific permission noted in a power is required for that power to be cumulative with itself.

At no point in the BRB is there found verbiage indicating "modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability are cumulative", nor verbiage indicating "same ability used by different models on the same target are cumulative". As this is a permissive rules set, and permission is specifically denied for multiple uses of the same ability to be cumulative while permission is give for different abilities that grant the same modifier to be cumulative, there is no evidence to support a power stacking with itself from multiple castings without specific permission to do so. We know of two powers so far that include such verbiage. There are several abilities that grant similar modifiers that include verbiage informing us that they are cumulative with other abilities granting the same or similar modifier, such as Stealth and Shroud, or Hammerhand and Might of Titan.

Enough precedent has been set within the rules as written to show how and when similar modifiers can be applied, and enough precedent has been set within RAW to restrict abilities from being cumulative without specific permission.

Unless the "Stackers" can quote an actual rule that states castings from different casters equal different powers and therefore the modifiers are cumulative, then they are flat wrong. Stating "pg. 2 gives us permission to do maths = same powers are cumulative" is not a rules supported argument when we are told which modifiers are allowed to be applied on pages 32 and 68. The argument that pg. 32 does not apply is bogus because pg. 32 informs us that the rules contained in that section apply to all abilities in that section, which psychic powers are listed as both falling under those rules and having additional rules of their own, to which we get the restrictions on pg. 68. Permission to resolve is irrelevant as resolution has no effect on application, given the restrictions listed on pages 32 and 68.

We can keep going in circles all you want, but the "Stackers" need to bring their A-game if they want to win this one.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Pg. 32 informs us that when abilities change or bend general rules, specific restrictions are followed which includes the statement that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission found in individual abilities. Further, psychic powers are listed as falling under these rules.

The bolded is absolutely false or deliberately misleading. The actual quote is:

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.

As such, page 32 has no relevancy.

We can keep going in circles all you want, but the "Stackers" need to bring their A-game if they want to win this one.

How about you have a discussion using accurate rules quotes instead of made up things that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand? Maybe then I'll pay attention to what you say, but when you quote page 32 I automatically discount your argument.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pg. 2 tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers as a general rule.

For applying multiple modifiers, with no restriction on source. Can you agree that there is no restriction onthe source of the multiple modifiers? Simple yes or no will suffice

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pg. 32 informs us that when abilities change or bend general rules, specific restrictions are followed which includes the statement that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission found in individual abilities. Further, psychic powers are listed as falling under these rules.

A deliberately misleading statement, given that page 32 talks about special rules, and you know full well, having been corrected on this many times, that psychic powers are not special rules.

PLease provide ACTUAL written rules, NOT rules you have made up, that shows that the page 2 allowance to perform 4+1+1 = 6 is overturned because the multiple modifiers have come from repeated application of the same psychic power.

Refusal to do so will be treated as a concession that your position is not RAW.

Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

The power requires that I apply a -1T.

This is the sticking point as Enfeeble does not require this.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

"Whilst this power is in effect ..."

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

"Whilst this power is in effect ..."

This power being that casting of the power, or any power named Enfeeble?

If I Enfeeble 2 different units, do they both suffer -1T?

I think it depends on how the power itself is written. If it says "The target unit is inflicted with XXXXXXX. XXXXXXX gives a -1 XXXXXXXX" then it shouldnt stack. if it says "The target gets -1 armor save" then it should stack. This of course may cause some powers to stack and some to not. still winds up 50/50

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

SJ

I cast hammerhand. I cast hammer hand again, from an IC.

Find the restriction on applying the second +1.

Oh, and we posted rules, by showing how your posited rules argument restricting page 2 didnt apply. Meaning page 2 still applies.

I have permission to Multipl(y) Modify characteristics from Page 2. Find where this permission is removed. Page and paragraph. Note: page 32 doesnt work, as you have been told. Continuing to point to page 32 is further acceptance by yourself thgat you are failing to argue using actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

Page 67 (iirc) gives me permission to resolve the power.
The power requires that I apply a -1T.
Find a reason I can't. Vehicles have one. Does a Paladin unit that is inflicted with Enfeeble already? If so, please cite one.

"Whilst this power is in effect ..."

This power being that casting of the power, or any power named Enfeeble?

If I Enfeeble 2 different units, do they both suffer -1T?

I was referring to verbiage, in that Enfeeble does not include verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative, and in fact tells us that whilst a unit is Enfeebled it suffers a specific effect. No matter how many times a until is Enfeebled, it only suffers the effects once during the power's duration.

As to one caster placing the same power on two separate target units, what do the rules tell us? An IC attached to a unit that receive the effects of a malediction and then leaves the unit while the power us still in effect, the IC is still effected. You know, the whole "whilst this power is in effect ..." and that.

Interestingly enough, a case can be made for removing an existing effect after a successful Deny the Witch from an additional casting of the same power. But that's for another thread.

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:

Was not correct and it is is disingenuous to say so.

The Actual rules are RAW, RAW stands for Rules as Written, thus the actual rules and RAW are interchangeable.

I've sent you a PM to explain why RAW and RAI are not interchangeable as you claim here I don't want to derail this thread.

I never said anything about RAI, I just said that The Actual rules are RAW (Rules as Written) what else would they be?

(Not to derail the thread, taking this to PM).

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

I was referring to verbiage, in that Enfeeble does not include verbiage giving permission for its effects to be cumulative, and in fact tells us that whilst a unit is Enfeebled it suffers a specific effect. No matter how many times a until is Enfeebled, it only suffers the effects once during the power's duration.

I'm aware of what you were referring to. You also declined to answer my question - how do you define "this power"? This specific casting (Enfeeble_001) or any spell named Enfeeble?

As to one caster placing the same power on two separate target units, what do the rules tell us? An IC attached to a unit that receive the effects of a malediction and then leaves the unit while the power us still in effect, the IC is still effected. You know, the whole "whilst this power is in effect ..." and that.

That's not what I asked. Please answer questions that I ask and not what you pretend I asked.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Thank you both for posting no rules to support your statements, proving my point. Good day!

SJ

I cast hammerhand. I cast hammer hand again, from an IC.

Find the restriction on applying the second +1.

Oh, and we posted rules, by showing how your posited rules argument restricting page 2 didnt apply. Meaning page 2 still applies.

I have permission to Multipl(y) Modify characteristics from Page 2. Find where this permission is removed. Page and paragraph. Note: page 32 doesnt work, as you have been told. Continuing to point to page 32 is further acceptance by yourself thgat you are failing to argue using actual rules.

Please show how the rules on pg. 32 do not apply to how modifier are or are not cumulative. Pg. 32 informs us that modifiers from the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission, to which weapons, terrain, scenarios, and psychic powers are listed as sources of modifiers that fall with this restriction. That is in print, right there in the BRB. Further, on the list of Universal Special Rules, Psyker is listed, which gives access to psychic powers and tells us additional rules are found on pg. 68. Additional rules, as in "in addition to the rules found here, there are more rules over there". Pg. 68 does not tell us to ignore pg. 32, in fact pg. 68 supports pg. 32 by further telling us "different powers are cumulative, unless otherwise noted".

My point is that RAW supports non-stacking, while the "Stackers" have to point out gaps in the rules to support their position. You cannot quote a single rule granting permission for modifiers from the same source to stack, yet I can quote more than one passage in the BRB telling us modifiers need to come from different abilities in order to stack. The arguments of "permission resolve equals permission to stack" and "maths" are irrelevant given that additional restrictions are applied elsewhere in the BRB.

SJ

stacking, is given RAW permission, only for different powers,

the whole arguement for same powers stacking is based 100% off what those people read as RAI, and they will quote rules that might be read as intending such, but are not actual permissions for identical powers to stack.

however, the BRB only gives specific permission for different powers to stack, and in a permissive ruleset, that is what we have to go on.

there is no RAW permission for identical powers to stack, some will argue otherwise,

there is 100% permission for different powers to stack, none will argue this, GW spelt it out plainly, and did NOT spell out a similar permission for identical powers.

the "stackers" argue that GWs intention, through other rules, which are not related specifically to stacking, are permission to stack, which they are not, that is an INTENTION based argument.

as RAW stands, only "different" powers stack, because the BRB only says that "different powers stack"

there is no line in the book that says identical powers stack, argueing for RAI that they do based on permission to cast ect, is all well and good, but is not RAW.

besides the obvious lack of RAW supporting stacking of identical powers, there is also plenty of RAI to counter the stackers who are using "RAI" and calling it RAW in this case.

the only RAW in the whole book relating to stacking powers, specifically gives permission for different powers to stack, and does not give such a permission for identical powers to stack. untill an ACTUAL written permission along the lines of "identical powers stack" then there is no such permission, argueing against it is arguing RAI, not RAW

I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

Correct, just like there are no rules stating same powers do stack. Lack of permission in a permissive rule set.

SJ