Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/09 17:29:37
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
rigeld2 wrote:
OhyoutotAllygotmebroomg.yourethefirsttobringthatup.com
How about reading the thread and not repeating the same tires, debunked arguments ad nauseum?
-
That has not been debunked, your blanket statement has.
A power [b]requires a modifier to be applied.[/b]
Enfeeble is cast on a vehicle, nothing is modified, no stat has changed, the power is resolved, there is no modifier applied.
Your statement is false. Claiming that this objection has been debunked is false.
Permission to cast more than one instance of a power is not in of itself permission to have multiple effects.
Pg2 alone is insufficient.
I remain unconvinced by the arguments of either side. Everyone is arguing the fringes of this, where, imo, the answer lies in same vs different still.
|
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/09 17:34:51
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.
Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/09 17:40:23
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.
Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.
The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/09 18:03:16
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
kambien wrote:You mean pages 3-4 where you do your utmost to avoid it altogether ?
I guess your childish posting means your done now ?
No, I ignored it because (as I believe I said at the time) it wasn't relevant. And it still isn't. Perhaps you'd like to prove that it is? I'd love it if you did. Automatically Appended Next Post: fuusa wrote:Enfeeble is cast on a vehicle, nothing is modified, no stat has changed, the power is resolved, there is no modifier applied.
Untrue. -1T is applied but has no game effect.
Permission to cast more than one instance of a power is not in of itself permission to have multiple effects.
Pg2 alone is insufficient.
It's not page 2 alone.
It's the fact (absolute) that you must resolve the second power. Resolving the second power against a model with a T value must add -1T. Doing otherwise requires citing a rule denying it. No one (ever) when asked has been able to present a rule that denies that. Automatically Appended Next Post: kambien wrote:The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect
What is the effect? Please answer this question.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/09 18:06:29
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/09 18:11:28
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
kambien wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist.
Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.
The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect
Page 2 states otherwise. We are told -1 twice is -2. Find the denial of this.
FInal chance: page and paragraph, in your next response, or you have conceded the argument. Refusal, dissembling etc will all be treated as concession, and that you are making a HYWPI argument without marking it as such, and you will be reported for trolling and breaking the tenets.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/09 18:51:51
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Strangely Beautiful Daemonette of Slaanesh
|
nosferatu1001 wrote:kambien wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:No, the power was resolved - the T stat was affected; it just doesnt exist. Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.
The 2nd enfeeble was resolved , its effect doesn't exist because we are not given permission to stack the effect
Page 2 states otherwise. We are told -1 twice is -2. Find the denial of this. FInal chance: page and paragraph, in your next response, or you have conceded the argument. Refusal, dissembling etc will all be treated as concession, and that you are making a HYWPI argument without marking it as such, and you will be reported for trolling and breaking the tenets. GRRRRR we are all angry! haha but yea the guys using my reasoning. If you consider the powers with the identical names from different casters as the same, and referring to page 68 along with rigelds reasoning with vehicles, both of the powers are resolved but the second one doesn't have a "game effect". I think everyone is cool with the idea that modifiers stack if the powers are cumulative. You cannot replace the powers name with the modifier though. (enfeeble)≠(-1T, -1S), (enfeeble)--> (-1T,-1S). Modifiers are not a pillar for the pro-stack debate, I see no way that RAW is being broken; you can see it as replacing the old same power with a new same power even though it was cast during the same turn (both were resolved in their individual castings). The main debate lays in the interpretation of "different"
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/09 18:59:18
"Oh hello there Eldar and fellow brethren Space Marines, take a seat and let me play you the music of my people"- Band Slaanesh, the Rock and Roll of 40k
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 07:26:21
Subject: Re:Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
Adelaide, South Australia
|
The main debate lays in the interpretation of "different"
No it doesn't, whether or not two castings of a malediction are considered different powers is completely irrelevant to this debate, as nothing in the rulebook states that only different powers can stack.
|
Ailaros wrote:You know what really bugs me? When my opponent, before they show up at the FLGS smears themselves in peanut butter and then makes blood sacrifices to Ashterai by slitting the throat of three male chickens and then smears the spatter pattern into the peanut butter to engrave sacred symbols into their chest and upper arms.
I have a peanut allergy. It's really inconsiderate.
"Long ago in a distant land, I, M'kar, the shape-shifting Master of Chaos, unleashed an unspeakable evil! But a foolish Grey Knight warrior wielding a magic sword stepped forth to oppose me. Before the final blow was struck, I tore open a portal in space and flung him into the Warp, where my evil is law! Now the fool seeks to return to real-space, and undo the evil that is Chaos!" |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 07:50:27
Subject: Re:Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Tough Tyrant Guard
|
PrinceRaven wrote:The main debate lays in the interpretation of "different"
No it doesn't, whether or not two castings of a malediction are considered different powers is completely irrelevant to this debate, as nothing in the rulebook states that only different powers can stack.
With respect, for people who believe that stacking the effects requires spercific permission, it does matter (Though, I believe that has been resolved rather than is still in debate).
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/10 07:50:54
It's my codex and I'll cry If I want to.
Tactical objectives are fantastic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 09:45:04
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
By "affected" I presume you mean "modified."
P2 tells us that if a stat is altered by, say -1, it is a modifier.
If the vehicles toughness is modified, it must have changed.
After the modifier has been applied (as demanded by the power), what is the vehicles toughness? An actual number would be required, but there isn't one.
Therefore, the power has been fully resolved and has had no-effect.
This is fine, it doesn't break the rules, full resolution does not, in of itself, require an effect.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Find the restriction on resolving the second power. Page and para. Since you are so convinced by this.
Convinced by what exactly?
As far as I'm concerned, you can fully resolve as many powers as you like, but, again, that does not necessarily mean there has to be an effect even one which the power demands.
Cast enfeeble at a vehicle as many times as you like, fully resolve them all and ... nothing happens.
The effect, that is, the modifier in this case, is circumstantial.
That's pretty much universal as far as I can tell.
Use something against a unit that is immune to the effect, that something can be fully resolved to no effect at all.
The point here, is why there should/should not be an effect, after full resolution.
I am not convinced by ANY of this.
I think, that those who think there is a clear RAW resolution, are fooling themselves. Automatically Appended Next Post: rigeld2 wrote:
fuusa wrote:Enfeeble is cast on a vehicle, nothing is modified, no stat has changed, the power is resolved, there is no modifier applied.
Untrue. -1T is applied but has no game effect.
Permission to cast more than one instance of a power is not in of itself permission to have multiple effects.
Pg2 alone is insufficient.
It's not page 2 alone.
It's the fact (absolute) that you must resolve the second power. Resolving the second power against a model with a T value must add -1T. Doing otherwise requires citing a rule denying it. No one (ever) when asked has been able to present a rule that denies that.
The -1 modifier was not applied, its literally inapplicable!
Multiple powers can (as I said above) be fully resolved to no-effect. That simply is not an argument here.
The true question is what is and what is not applicable, that still, imo, resides in same vs. different.
I remain unconvinced.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/10 09:56:11
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 10:41:48
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
OK, you remain unconvinced, despite the rules on page 2 stating that indeed, -1 + -1 is -2.
Your opinion is noted, please mark your arguments as HYWPI in future, as they do not match the current rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 12:03:23
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
Now why would I do that?
Have I said how I would play it?
How do you know it wouldn't match the current rules (as you see them)?
Both sides of this argument have pro's and con's, pg2 is only part of it.
|
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 12:17:43
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Undefined -1 = Undefined.
It's not literally inapplicable. I'm sorry you think so.
I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it. How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 13:00:57
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
fuusa wrote:Now why would I do that?
Have I said how I would play it?
How do you know it wouldn't match the current rules (as you see them)?
Both sides of this argument have pro's and con's, pg2 is only part of it.
Pro: page 2 gives permission to cumulatively apply modifiers. -1T is a modifier. 2 -1T is -2T
Con: there are some reminders that different powers stack.
I "know" because I have produced evidence stating such, and the counters lack one vital element - there are no ruels actually stating what the anti-maths just works as it does otherwise side want. They just dont exist.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 14:43:01
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
A vehicles toughness is not undefined, it has no toughness characteristic at all.
The definition of a vehicles toughness = it does not exist.
Modifying something that does not exist = failure, it can't happen.
Enfeeble demands -1t to be applied, it can't be done, power is resolved, no problem.
rigeld2 wrote:I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it.
My "regiment?"
What does that even mean here?
Which side am I on?
rigeld2 wrote:How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.
No.
Enfeeble can be used on a vehicle, umpteen times, the non-existent t stat is never modified/effected/reduced in any way.
You did say this, didn't you???
So, to paraphrase ...
"Enfeeble requires a modifier to be applied."
All that is necessary to prove that wrong, is one example.
An example being vehicles.
Your statement is wrong.
nosferatu1001 wrote: fuusa wrote:Now why would I do that?
Have I said how I would play it?
How do you know it wouldn't match the current rules (as you see them)?
Both sides of this argument have pro's and con's, pg2 is only part of it.
Pro: page 2 gives permission to cumulatively apply modifiers. -1T is a modifier. 2 -1T is -2T
Con: there are some reminders that different powers stack.
I "know" because I have produced evidence stating such, and the counters lack one vital element - there are no ruels actually stating what the anti-maths just works as it does otherwise side want. They just dont exist.
You "know?"
How about answering the question that I actually asked???
From what I have said here, how would I play it?
Also, why would I agree to your request (to label my arguments hiwpi) when that would be misleading and untrue?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/10 14:47:55
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 14:55:41
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
fuusa wrote: A vehicles toughness is not undefined, it has no toughness characteristic at all. The definition of a vehicles toughness = it does not exist. Modifying something that does not exist = failure, it can't happen. Enfeeble demands -1t to be applied, it can't be done, power is resolved, no problem.
No - you've failed to resolve the power. Is there an option for the -1T to not be applied? Please cite a rule allowing it. rigeld2 wrote:I know the only reason you keep bringing up vehicles is that your regiment hinges on it.
My "regiment?" What does that even mean here? Which side am I on?
Sorry - auto-correct when I misspelled argument. And right now, since you're arguing against me you're on the opposite "side". rigeld2 wrote:How about this - I'll posit that Enfeeble cannot be applied to Vehicles. Entirely consistent with my argument and obliterates yours.
No. Enfeeble can be used on a vehicle, umpteen times, the non-existent t stat is never modified/effected/reduced in any way.
Using your argument it cannot be used on a vehicle because the T cannot be reduced and you must apply that effect. You did say this, didn't you??? So, to paraphrase ... "Enfeeble requires a modifier to be applied." All that is necessary to prove that wrong, is one example. An example being vehicles. Your statement is wrong.
Yes, I did say it. You've brought up an example that I feel is irrelevant. But pretending it's relevant doesn't prove my statement incorrect, it simply proves that your example can't happen. You have no allowance to alter the T of a vehicle. Therefore you cannot resolve the power, using your argument. No one has ever cited permission to partially resolve a power - perhaps you'd like to find some?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/10 14:56:03
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/10 16:35:08
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
How do you partial resolve a power ?
it is either resolved or it isn't right ?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/11 10:19:58
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
rigeld2 wrote:No - you've failed to resolve the power. Is there an option for the -1T to not be applied? Please cite a rule allowing it.
Rubbish.
The power has been fully resolved, it just has no-effect.
I don't need to cite anything, the onus is on you to prove that a non-existent stat can in any way be modified and if it can't, the game ends (it doesn't).
rigeld2 wrote: And right now, since you're arguing against me you're on the opposite "side".
That would make me a "no stacking" supporter then?
As I have said, I remain unconvinced, but that doesn't stop me from criticising what I believe to be incorrect, from whichever "side."
That's correct.
rigeld2 wrote:Therefore you cannot resolve the power, using your argument.
There is no-restriction on what can be targeted by enfeeble, permission exists to use it however you see fit, its effects, however are dependent upon the target.
The target can be whatever you choose, there is no-restriction, including a vehicle. Permission exists to cast it on a vehicle. Enfeeble cannot effect a vehicle, therefore it doesn't.
1. Expend warp charge (done).
2. Declare target, a vehicle (done).
3. Take psychic test (done).
3. Deny the witch (-).
5. Resolve psychic power.
That vehicle has -1 t now, that cannot be applied, the power was successful, the effect however, does not take place (done).
On we go, the power was fully resolved.
There is noting in the rules that suggests this stops the game in an inescapable loop of your imagination.
rigeld2 wrote:No one has ever cited permission to partially resolve a power - perhaps you'd like to find some?
My pov is clear, that a power can be cast (and resolved, fully), without an effect at the end of it without creating a rules limbo.
I don't need to.
So, let me get this straight, if I cast a psychic power at a legal target and only some of the effects will be applicable, where does this leave us, according to you?
1. Does the power remain unresolved, as some element proves to be impossible (and where does that leave us)?
2. Is the power resolved because at least something functioned?
3. Is the power partially resolved (and where does that leave us)?
4. Other?
|
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/11 12:08:15
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Option 1 would be correct, and it would be an illegal use of the power.
And please explain this:
Enfeeble forces -1T as part of its resolution.
You are saying that you cannot apply -1T.
Yet you're also saying the power is fully resolved.
How can it be fully resolved if you cannot apply part of the effect? You've said a lot but I've never (and never will more than likely) cited a rule allowing you to partially resolve a power.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/11 14:20:48
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
rigeld2 wrote:Option 1 would be correct, and it would be an illegal use of the power.
Where (in the actual rules) does it say that enfeeble cannot be cast upon a vehicle?
Does it not target an enemy unit, then?
Is an enemy vehicle, not an enemy unit?
rigeld2 wrote:And please explain this:
Enfeeble forces -1T as part of its resolution.
You are saying that you cannot apply -1T.
Yet you're also saying the power is fully resolved.
You have admitted that -1 t cannot be applied, the rules tell us that it is perfectly permissible to target a vehicle.
[ rigeld2 wrote:You've said a lot but I've never (and never will more than likely) cited a rule allowing you to partially resolve a power.
No, but you may be getting dangerously close to needing this to be the case to support your argument and you seem not to realise it.
[ rigeld2 wrote:How can it be fully resolved if you cannot apply part of the effect?
Ok, I have something in mind, but, yet again, just to be clear ... if any one part of a power, cannot be applied to the legitimate target, the power cannot be resolved???
If you legally target an enemy unit and that power cannot be fully resolved, because at least one effect cannot be applicable, does the game stop?
If, by using a power, again on a 100% targetable unit, one effect cannot be applied, is this illegal and therefore you could not actually use the power in the first place?
Precise answers, please.
|
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/11 14:34:13
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
I have to remember this. If it ever seems that I'd be losing a game, I just need to cast Enfeeble on a vehicle and the game crashes, forcing a tie!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/11 14:59:57
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I hate to break a tenant of the forum , but perhaps someone needs to post the actual definition of resolve or look it up themselves , it might clear things up
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/11 15:20:49
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
fuusa wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Option 1 would be correct, and it would be an illegal use of the power.
Where (in the actual rules) does it say that enfeeble cannot be cast upon a vehicle? Does it not target an enemy unit, then? Is an enemy vehicle, not an enemy unit?
It is. But you've attempted to do something which (according to you, not me) you cannot do. That would be illegal. You have admitted that -1 t cannot be applied, the rules tell us that it is perfectly permissible to target a vehicle.
Which creates an illegal state, meaning that the action is illegal. Remember, this is with your assumption (unsupported by rules) that you cannot apply the -1T. No, but you may be getting dangerously close to needing this to be the case to support your argument and you seem not to realise it.
If you truly think so you don't understand my argument. Ok, I have something in mind, but, yet again, just to be clear ... if any one part of a power, cannot be applied to the legitimate target, the power cannot be resolved???
Correct. If you legally target an enemy unit and that power cannot be fully resolved, because at least one effect cannot be applicable, does the game stop?
It stops just as much as you building a list with no HQ character, or moving a unit 9" instead of 6". If, by using a power, again on a 100% targetable unit, one effect cannot be applied, is this illegal and therefore you could not actually use the power in the first place?
Correct.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/11 15:20:57
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 09:20:26
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle
no idea
|
Ok, but I really wanted your opinions, rather than your opinion of mine.
But, again, your view of ...
"Enfeeble cannot be cast at a vehicle because there will be no-effect. As enfeeble demands -1T it cannot be resolved on a vehicle, therefore it cannot be cast at one."
As you said, it would be an illegal use of the power.
Is that what you think?
A bit of a columbo moment.
Does this basic idea (that an ability/power/whatever) cannot be used if an element of it cannot be resolved/used extend to the game as a whole, or is it just psychic powers?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/12 09:24:10
You wart-ridden imbeciles! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 12:10:25
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
fuusa wrote:Ok, but I really wanted your opinions, rather than your opinion of mine.
But, again, your view of ...
"Enfeeble cannot be cast at a vehicle because there will be no-effect. As enfeeble demands -1T it cannot be resolved on a vehicle, therefore it cannot be cast at one."
As you said, it would be an illegal use of the power.
Is that what you think?
A bit of a columbo moment.
Does this basic idea (that an ability/power/whatever) cannot be used if an element of it cannot be resolved/used extend to the game as a whole, or is it just psychic powers?
Context is important. In general, yes it should be applied game-wide unless there's permission to partially resolve.
You've invented this permission - please back it up.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 12:39:11
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Courageous Space Marine Captain
|
So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 14:21:28
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
Crimson wrote:So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?
What would be the point of using something on a target if the target ignores all of its effects?
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 14:51:03
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Reverent Tech-Adept
|
DeathReaper wrote: Crimson wrote:So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?
What would be the point of using something on a target if the target ignores all of its effects?
The point is that anyone suggesting that casting psychic powers that might not have an actual impact on a model would break the game is so grossly overcommitted to winning the argument that they have abandoned reason.
Think about a psychic power that modifies leadership or strength (like enfeeble). This outrageous theory suggests that casting such a power on an artillery unit would break the game. Ridiculous.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/12 14:54:44
Think first. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 15:25:34
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Crimson wrote:So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?
Well, yes. Unless you've got some rule allowing you to partially resolve the ability. I've asked for it to be cited before but I've never seen it cited.
Did I miss it?
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 15:43:12
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote: Crimson wrote:So you are seriously claiming that if all effects of a psychic power (or any other attack for that matter) cannot be applied to the target unit, you cannot use the ability at all against that unit?
Well, yes. Unless you've got some rule allowing you to partially resolve the ability. I've asked for it to be cited before but I've never seen it cited.
Did I miss it?
Exactly how do you "partial resolve" ?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/12 15:54:01
Subject: Psychic Powers Stacking
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
That's the question. It's being asserted that you can resolve the power while not applying all of its effects. That would be partially resolving the power.
Of course no one has backed that assertion up with rules - just incredulity that did dare point out it's an illegal action.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
|