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.

So, we still have 2 pages of stupidity left?

More or less. Sometimes the Mods are on top of their game and circular threads get locked early. Sometimes late.

Point is all raw citations are able to be interpreted two different ways but further citations have reinforced nonstacking though extrapolation. without any further citations from the prostacking side its pretty clear that unless they are specified as stacking then they don't.

@ Deathreaper

So you're still claiming that because you are permitted to use a power twice on a unit that the power is permitted to be cumulative with itself. Please explain how one thing means the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

No proof against is needed where no evidence for has been provided.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Non-cumulatively this time, how many Enfeebles are active on the unit?

If you manage to prove that enfeeble can not be cast twice on the same unit, then I will anser this, but as it stands this question has no bearing on the discussion.

You answers are becoming increasingly nonsensical.

Part 1: I never claimed otherwise and that has 'no bearing' on whether or not they are cumulative.

Par 2: The number of Enfeebles active on the unit most certainly does have bearing here as your entire claim is based on the premise that there are two.

 Abandon wrote:
@ Deathreaper

So you're still claiming that because you are permitted to use a power twice on a unit that the power is permitted to be cumulative with itself. Please explain how one thing means the other.

See Below:

No proof against is needed where no evidence for has been provided.

Below:

Again, The psychic power rules give us permission to cast enfeeble, or hammerhand twice on the same unit from different casters.

You need something that denies this permission otherwise they both have effects and we look at P2 to determine how to apply these effects.

Above:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Non-cumulatively this time, how many Enfeebles are active on the unit?

If you manage to prove that enfeeble can not be cast twice on the same unit, then I will anser this, but as it stands this question has no bearing on the discussion.

You answers are becoming increasingly nonsensical.

Part 1: I never claimed otherwise and that has 'no bearing' on whether or not they are cumulative.

Par 2: The number of Enfeebles active on the unit most certainly does have bearing here as your entire claim is based on the premise that there are two.

Well we are allowed to cast two, what restricts the second one from taking effect? Got a quote that says the second one does not take effect?

If not See above:

Except that little part that is interpreted two ways where it states that the effects of different powers are cumulative, not the same power. Backed up by design intent citations in 6th ed power listings of specific exceptions to allow for multiple cumulative stackings of thr same power.

so what do you have again? Oh that's right the same base rule with the other interpretation but no design intent citations.

unless you'd like to dig up spme 6th ed citations on the matter we can just assume that the same power cannot be cumulative unless it has the exception like the cited powers do.

Ah, so you are assuming something, but have admitted you have no rules stating non-cumulative?

Good story. Or, just play by the actual rules, which is that page 2 applies unless told otherwise.

 Bausk wrote:
Except that little part that is interpreted two ways where it states that the effects of different powers are cumulative, not the same power. Backed up by design intent citations in 6th ed power listings of specific exceptions to allow for multiple cumulative stackings of thr same power.

so what do you have again? Oh that's right the same base rule with the other interpretation but no design intent citations.

unless you'd like to dig up spme 6th ed citations on the matter we can just assume that the same power cannot be cumulative unless it has the exception like the cited powers do.

Going to say this again for those that have not read the thread:

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative. (It really does not).

There are two castings of engfeeble on a given unit.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

"Whilst the power is in effect" ("The power" means Enfeeble, the one that has been cast, so you can have multiples of the Enfeeble power in effect on a single target unit at the same time). Nothing restricts the targeting rules for Psychic powers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative. (It really does not).

Technically it may not, however, it is a clear statement of intent. If they actually meant that all psychic powers are cumulative, they would have said so.

There are two castings of engfeeble on a given unit.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

"Whilst the power is in effect" ("The power" means Enfeeble, the one that has been cast, so you can have multiples of the Enfeeble power in effect on a single target unit at the same time). Nothing restricts the targeting rules for Psychic powers.

You cannot know that 'this power' refers to an individual casting of the power, instead of the power in general. It could be either, however, combined with the clear statement of intent from the previous part, it's probably the latter.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative. (It really does not).

Technically it may not, however, it is a clear statement of intent. If they actually meant that all psychic powers are cumulative, they would have said so.

I disagree about the intent.
If they didn't want them to be cumulative, they would have said so.
They didn't want Special Rules to be cumulative, so they added extra wording in there to make it clear they weren't.
The fact they didn't add the same wording to psychic powers, when the wording is otherwise so similar, is also a clear statement of intent.

As above.

Given RAW allows it, and intent is as ever, clear as mud, simply following the written rules is the likely best way to operate.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative. (It really does not).

Technically it may not, however, it is a clear statement of intent. If they actually meant that all psychic powers are cumulative, they would have said so.

I disagree about the intent.
If they didn't want them to be cumulative, they would have said so.
They didn't want Special Rules to be cumulative, so they added extra wording in there to make it clear they weren't.
The fact they didn't add the same wording to psychic powers, when the wording is otherwise so similar, is also a clear statement of intent.

To be fair you could say that either way, I've pointed out in one of the previos threads GW makes it obvious when and where effects are cumulative as well as where effects are not cumulative, generally its pretty well thought and and written. So it would have been easy enough to say 'Unless otherwise stated, psychic powers are cumulative / all psychic powers are cumulative / something obvious here.'

From all of these threads only thing I see as clear that intent isn't clear. If I had to put money down on it I would place my bet on not stacking for future FAQ's, based on my own interpretation of some of the rules, but I wouldn't put down much on it, and will play it either way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Given RAW allows it,

Whether RAW allows it depends on what 'this power' means on the power descriptions. You cannot know that, and you cannot just declare that RAW allows it. RAW on the matter is properly unclear.

We can agree to disagree on RAI.

So you will just ignore Grendels proof that they also explicitly say when things are not cumulative? RAI is most certainly muddy, by any objective standard.

RAW is not unclear, given context. If you ignore context, which you do by just stating "this power", then I agree it is unclear. Good job context forms part of the rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you will just ignore Grendels proof that they also explicitly say when things are not cumulative? RAI is most certainly muddy, by any objective standard.

RAW is not unclear, given context. If you ignore context, which you do by just stating "this power", then I agree it is unclear. Good job context forms part of the rule.

So you claim I have problem with understanding context, while you cannot parse from 'different powers' stack that same don't? And it is perfectly natural assumption given the context, that 'this power' refers to the power in general. You can even replace 'this power' with the name of the power, and the sentence still makes perfect sense, ie. 'Whilst Enfeeble is on effect..." Stop claiming that you have some RAW high ground here, your whole RAW case rests on particular reading of that phrase, and there is absolutely no way to determine that its the right one.

RAW is if you ignore "whilst this power is in effect" and assume psychic powers are cumulative then by page 2 we can prove they are cumulative. So the "clear RAW" requires an assumption and ignoring words.

Muddy RaI means that nearly every 6th Ed power has specific verbiage preventing it from stacking, they tell you on 3 separate occasions that different power stack (which is not the same as saying the same powers don't stack, it does at least imply that) and there are a few powers that do then go out of their way to tell you that they stack with themselves. Sorry but the RaI is far from muddy. Just because people want it yo be muddy and are arguing against it doesn't mean it is not clear.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you will just ignore Grendels proof that they also explicitly say when things are not cumulative? RAI is most certainly muddy, by any objective standard.

RAW is not unclear, given context. If you ignore context, which you do by just stating "this power", then I agree it is unclear. Good job context forms part of the rule.

So you claim I have problem with understanding context, while you cannot parse from 'different powers' stack that same don't? And it is perfectly natural assumption given the context, that 'this power' refers to the power in general. You can even replace 'this power' with the name of the power, and the sentence still makes perfect sense, ie. 'Whilst Enfeeble is on effect..." Stop claiming that you have some RAW high ground here, your whole RAW case rests on particular reading of that phrase, and there is absolutely no way to determine that its the right one.

Your context argument fails wholeheartedly, as it is based on a logical fallacy.

A -> B does not mean B -> A.

Not RAW high ground, just using actual context and rules to come to a single answer.

Whilst THIS [enfeeble[, as opposed to THAT [enfeeble]. You are replacing "this power" not "power". Parsing something correctly gives you the correct answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Your context argument fails wholeheartedly, as it is based on a logical fallacy.

A -> B does not mean B -> A.

I understand logic just fine, thank you. That's why I said it technically doesn't say same powers don't stack. Unlike you, I just don't believe GW writes their rules as logical syntax. There is no reason to write word 'different' there unless the writer thinks the same powers do not stack. But this is why we disagree constantly: I do not believe GW writes intentionally misleading rules, true meaning of which can only be deciphered by looking for loop holes.

Not RAW high ground, just using actual context and rules to come to a single answer.

Whilst THIS [enfeeble[, as opposed to THAT [enfeeble]. You are replacing "this power" not "power". Parsing something correctly gives you the correct answer.

You mean parsing differently gives different answer. That certainly is true. Writing 'this Enfeeble' in the description of the power would not make sense though, it is a description of the power in general, not description of an individual casting. 'This power' must mean 'this power we are talking about.'

 Crimson wrote:
'This power' must mean 'this power we are talking about.'

Well It should read: 'This power' must mean 'the enfeeble which was just cast.' but it is almost the same as what you said.

Point is, it can perfectly logically mean the power in general or an individual casting, there is absolutely no way to know for sure. I'm not even saying my reading is more likely, it could easily be either. This is why RAW is in the limbo. It is them writing that 'different stack' that makes me think they meant the power in general. But that's matter of RAI.

@DR - You're making a leap of logic saying that you are allowed to use it twice, therefore it stacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so you are assuming something, but have admitted you have no rules stating non-cumulative?

Good story. Or, just play by the actual rules, which is that page 2 applies unless told otherwise.

The rule on page 2

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values"

... is speaking only of modifiers and will cause two -1T effects to stack. I'm not contesting that. Psychic powers like Enfeeble are not modifiers, though they may grant a modifier. If the causes(Enffebles effecting the unit) do not stack then you cannot have multiple effects(modifiers applied to the unit). Your argument as far as i can tell(correct me if I'm wrong) goes backwards stating that because modifiers stack the source of those modifiers stacks. Which is incorrect, Enfeeble is still not permitted to be cumulative though the -1T it causes will be cumulative with other modifiers. My issue is not with the modifiers stacking but the number of Enfeeble effects on the unit. Non-cumulatively you cannot have more than one no matter how many more you add.

Personally, it seems to me that per RAW the basic rules support modifiers from maledictions being stackable, especially considering there are maledictions which are worded to explicitly state they do. It's the wording of the individual powers (like Enfeeble) that seems to indicate that they don't or at least, might indicate that they don't. Wouldn't it be nice if GW could write rules with actual clarity? Or is that too much of an ask from a company that's been writing rules for decades?

 Abandon wrote:
@DR - You're making a leap of logic saying that you are allowed to use it twice, therefore it stacks.

How is that a leap?

We have permission to cast it on a unit, it has its effects, then we cast it from a different Psyker on the same unit.

Math tells us how to apply the modifiers, and nothing restricts it. No leap, all supported by the actual rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
@DR - You're making a leap of logic saying that you are allowed to use it twice, therefore it stacks.

How is that a leap?

We have permission to cast it on a unit, it has its effects, then we cast it from a different Psyker on the same unit.

Math tells us how to apply the modifiers, and nothing restricts it. No leap, all supported by the actual rules.

Please tell me, how does modifiers stacking mean that psychic powers, which may or may not grant a modifier, stack? Or how does being permitted to use the power on the same target twice mean it stacks?

These things have nothing to to with it yet you keep touting them as proof that psychic powers stack. How are these not leaps in logic? Unless you're claiming that maledictions and blessings are modifiers and/or redefining the words cumulative and non-cumulative, you are way off the mark.

Because the Psychic power rules tell us to pick a target, and resolve the power, Then a different Psyker can pick the same target and resolve that power.

It is all in the casting rules for Psychic powers.

They are not leaps of Logic because we are given permission to cast both powers on the same unit.

Unless you cited a rule that restricts a second casting and i missed it.

If I missed it please quote the rule once more.

 Abandon wrote:
Please tell me, how does modifiers stacking mean that psychic powers, which may or may not grant a modifier, stack?

I'm pretty sure no one is using "modifiers" to justify a blanket allowance of stacking on all psychic powers.
Only those that actually use modifiers.

if a Blessing grants a USR, then these cannot stack (the USR rules show this).
If a Blessing grants a Modifier, then these can stack (as per the modifier rule)

Crimson - actually you said that you can parse from it that same dont. That isnt the same thing at all. You never used "technically", at least not in what I quoted.
See, this is why we butt heads - you use words incredibly imprecisely, and then when people, in a text based forum, use those words to show your argument has fallen apart , you complain.

I think they wrote it as a reminder, which, functionally, it is. No loopholes there - in fact the only person constructing loopholes is you - literally. You are creating text that doesnt exist, and stating we should follow this non-existent rule "because". Not a particularly compelling argument.

Abandon - I have permission to cast the power twice, and resolve the power as per page 2, if appropriate. Find the denial of permission. Page and paragraph. OR concede your argument is also not based in rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - actually you said that you can parse from it that same dont. That isnt the same thing at all. You never used "technically", at least not in what I quoted.
See, this is why we butt heads - you use words incredibly imprecisely, and then when people, in a text based forum, use those words to show your argument has fallen apart , you complain.

It was on the same page as the post you quoted, few posts earlier:

Crimson wrote:Technically it may not, however, it is a clear statement of intent. If they actually meant that all psychic powers are cumulative, they would have said so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
]I think they wrote it as a reminder, which, functionally, it is. No loopholes there - in fact the only person constructing loopholes is you - literally. You are creating text that doesnt exist, and stating we should follow this non-existent rule "because".

Why in this context there needs to be a reminder that specifically different powers do stack? Is there some reason why people would be prone of forgetting that, but not that same powers stack? No sensible person (or even Mat Ward) would write that if they meant that all all powers stacked. As a reminder it would make about as much sense as writing 'all powers with a letter 'e' in their name are cumulative', if you actually mean that all powers are.

PowerA gives +1 str.
PowerB gives +1 str.

Other game systems have said that A would satisfy B's requirement to add. Perhaps they felt the need to clarify otherwise here?

Why does it matter why that sentence is there? The fact (absolutely demonstrable) is that it does not say same psychic powers do not stack - you're inventing that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Why does it matter why that sentence is there? The fact (absolutely demonstrable) is that it does not say same psychic powers do not stack - you're inventing that.

Because unlike you I care about RAI, and don't assume GW writes intentionally misleading rules. And as RAW is actually unknowable (as it hinges on what 'this power' in the power descriptions refers to), RAI actually matters.