Switch Theme:

Psychic Powers Stacking  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




rigeld2 wrote:
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.

I ask because the definition of resolve conflicts with it being done partial

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/12 16:20:56


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Agreed. It's not my argument to support, however.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Here we go then!

The question was ...
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?
rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Right so, I have a few examples for you to have a look at so you can say exactly what happens in these situations.

Pg421, pyromancy.
1. I have a psyker with firery form.
He has permission, so he casts it on himself. From this, he gains a save, +2 S and his close combat attacks gain soul blaze.
Can he assault a vehicle?

2. I have a psyker with sunburst.
There are 2 enemy units in range, so he casts it.
It is a nova power and so must hit both enemy units.
One enemy unit is infantry, while the other is a vehicle and so is immune to the effects of blind.
Can he cast the power?
If so, how is this single power resolved???

P419, biomancy.
3. I have a psyker with haemorrage.
There is 1 enemy unit in range and its a vehicle.
If he can cast this, it will result in a toughness test on a target with no toughness.
Can he cast the power?
If so, how is this single power resolved???

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/12 16:42:58


You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





I don't have my book with me we I'm going off of memory (and I'm about to get on a cruise so won't be able to give better answers)

1). Yes. If I remember correctly Soul Blaze explains what happens when attacking vehicles.

2). Again, if I remember Blind explains how to handle vehicles.

3). No, he cannot cast the power as he has no valid targets.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't have my book with me we I'm going off of memory (and I'm about to get on a cruise so won't be able to give better answers)

Seriously, rigeld, you need better answers.

rigeld2 wrote:
1). Yes. If I remember correctly Soul Blaze explains what happens when attacking vehicles.

No it doesn't.
It deals with unsaved wounds, so wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:
2). Again, if I remember Blind explains how to handle vehicles.

Not in the rulebook, but the faq says ...

Page 34 – Special Rules, Blind
Add “Furthermore, any model that does not have an Initiative
characteristic (for example non-walker Vehicles, Fortifications
etc) are unaffected by this special rule.”...after the last
sentence.

So, if you are correct, this cannot be used, you are wrong.
How about hallucination vs. a vehicle ...


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/12 18:49:41


You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Broodlord





Eureka California

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.


1. I don't disagree but it does not provide permission for the power to be cumulative. Your defining the ability to add more as the ability to be cumulative. That is incorrect. Also the power is not resolved per page 2.
2. Denial is not needed without permission being granted.
3. This is funny as your argument has no rules basis.

chillis wrote:I don't understand how this modifier is being used to prove that stacking is legal. To apply the modifier you have to stack... Let's make enfeeble= A, modifier=B and the caster =#.
A1 -->B
A2-->B
If we have B we can not discern whether or not it results from A1, A2, both, or neither. We only know the effects of A1 and A2 and that two instances of A1 (A1+A1) or A2 (A2+A2) cannot happen. It simply leads to the argument of whether or not A1 and A2 are different and able to stack which then leads to the modifiers adding up. The modifiers are not the psychic powers, the psychic powers result in modifiers


This is what I've been trying to tell them for pages now.

rigeld2 wrote:A1 requires a modifier to be applied.
A2 requires a modifier to be applied.

They both require a modifier to be applied for the power to be resolved. How are you resolving the power and not applying a relevant modifier?


This is the kind of thing that makes me think you don't entirely have the concept of cumulative vs non-cumulative down. A's are not permitted to act cumulatively. No matter how many you add, there is only one A.

When you resolve A2, which is not cumulative with A1, the part of the effect that matters here is that A becomes 'in effect' on the target. The question I have been posing, which is being ignored, is how many A's are in effect in the target? If you say two, please explain how you got there non-cumulatively.

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 part in bold. It make no sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.


I think there is a conceptual difference in how these powers work that is not allowing progress. Blessing and Maledictions "...unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn." This tell me that the power becomes active on the target and is backed by the wording of the BRB powers themselves all stating "Whilst the power is in effect..." Now a Blessing or Malediction being 'in effect' is itself an effect of the psychic power as well as the cause of the powers end effects (stat modifiers, moral checks, etc). So a successful use of the powers only direct effect is that the power becomes "in effect" and the rules for the power tell you what happens while it is sustained.

Are we agreed so far?

I'm saying without permission to act cumulatively you can never have more than one 'in effect' at a time ...and before you say again 'but I can resolve it more than once' there is a large difference between how many times you're allowed to use a power on a target and how many of uses of that power are going to have added effect.

rigeld2 wrote: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.


Except you are allowed to use Enfeeble on a vehicle.

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles."

..or are you simply stating it will have no effect at all? If not, why not? There is still the matter of treating all terrain as difficult. If as you claim, the power cannot be resolved why would they lead us to game-breaking mechanics? There are other lines of thought on this than your own and where things can be interpreted differently in reasonable and logical ways where one line takes us to game breaking unplayable mechanics and the other leads us to a working rule set should not the choice be obvious?

rigeld2 wrote:
 fuusa wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
Undefined -1 = Undefined.

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???

rigeld2 wrote:
A power requires a modifier to be applied.


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?


So you are dead set that they either intentionally or through complete incompetence allow what they plainly tell us we can do to break the game and are unwilling to adjust what you consider 'resolution'.

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?


Again

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles." FAQ - page 7

Yes, you can use it.

rigeld2 wrote:Agreed. It's not my argument to support, however.


It is your version of someone else's argument. Since it has been modified and does not agree with the original you will indeed have to support it or admit it was a vain attempt to discredit the argument you otherwise have no answer for.

-It is not the strongest of the Tyranids that survive but the ones most adaptive to change. 
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

 Abandon wrote:

Except you are allowed to use Enfeeble on a vehicle.

"Q: Can vehicles be targeted by malediction psychic powers?
(p68)
A: Yes, but some malediction powers (such as Hallucination)
have no effect on vehicles."

Abandon, you horrible horrible man!
I've been setting that up for ages now!

Of course rigeld is wrong and his squirming in order to avoid admitting it has painted him into this corner.
Hopefully that will settle this portion of the argument (though somehow I doubt it) and it can move on through this rigeld-inflicted impasse.

As I said before though, I am still undecided.
That said, my next criticism will be for the "no-stacking" lobby.
Very late or early here though, back to bed.

You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in us
Strangely Beautiful Daemonette of Slaanesh





 Abandon wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.


1. I don't disagree but it does not provide permission for the power to be cumulative. Your defining the ability to add more as the ability to be cumulative. That is incorrect. Also the power is not resolved per page 2.
2. Denial is not needed without permission being granted.
3. This is funny as your argument has no rules basis.

chillis wrote:I don't understand how this modifier is being used to prove that stacking is legal. To apply the modifier you have to stack... Let's make enfeeble= A, modifier=B and the caster =#.
A1 -->B
A2-->B
If we have B we can not discern whether or not it results from A1, A2, both, or neither. We only know the effects of A1 and A2 and that two instances of A1 (A1+A1) or A2 (A2+A2) cannot happen. It simply leads to the argument of whether or not A1 and A2 are different and able to stack which then leads to the modifiers adding up. The modifiers are not the psychic powers, the psychic powers result in modifiers


This is what I've been trying to tell them for pages now.


Yet, whenever I say a word against page 2's irrelevance and the importance of page 68 I'm seen as irrelevant to the debate... I see this thread as HYWPI incentive instead of open-mindedness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/13 05:53:45


"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

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Abandon - I have permission to resolve each power in turn. There is nothing stating the powers themselves need to accumulate

I cast Enfeeble on the unit. I cast it again. I resolve both, getting -2

Pewrmission was granted, no denial has ever been found by you, and therefore your argument fails.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






I said this hundreds of times by now: if 'this power' refers to the power in general they do not stack. You can have as many Enfeebles in effect on the unit as you like, and they do not stack.
So the RAW is inconclusive, there's no getting around that.

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




You have said it, and people have disagreed with you. So continuing to repeat it, with no new evidnce on your side, isnt helpful
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have said it, and people have disagreed with you. So continuing to repeat it, with no new evidnce on your side, isnt helpful

Stop pushing your HYWPI as RAW, seriously. You have absolutely no rules backing your reading of 'this power', none. Yet you pretend RAW is on your side and demands rules citation from others, while you have none. P.2 has feth all to do with this part of the rules, so no point bringing that up. Note how I am not claiming that RAW supports my reading, merely that RAW is unclear. So either provide rules citation that clearly states that 'this power' in power descriptions refers to individual instance of the power rather than the power in general, or get down from that RAW high horse.

   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

 chillis wrote:
[
Yet, whenever I say a word against page 2's irrelevance and the importance of page 68 I'm seen as irrelevant to the debate... I see this thread as HYWPI incentive instead of open-mindedness.

Personally I think you're right.
Not necessarily about the final outcome (no stacking), but about the way we get to either prove p2's relevance or irrelevance here.

This power, same and different need to be sorted. Once that's done (if possible), we will understand what part p2 plays, if any.

@nosferatu, do you concede the point that -1T cannot be applied to a vehicle as it has no-toughness to modify and that this is perfectly acceptable when resolving a power?
Your earlier position is untenable and we really need to push on with this debate now that stumbling block is thoroughly debunked?

You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Crimson - again, I disagree with your reading that it is unclear, and have provided reasons as to why. Your continued disparaging comments are tiresome, however.

fuusa - -1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.

You also might have me confused with rigeld.
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

 Crimson wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
You have said it, and people have disagreed with you. So continuing to repeat it, with no new evidnce on your side, isnt helpful

Stop pushing your HYWPI as RAW, seriously. You have absolutely no rules backing your reading of 'this power', none. Yet you pretend RAW is on your side and demands rules citation from others, while you have none. P.2 has feth all to do with this part of the rules, so no point bringing that up. Note how I am not claiming that RAW supports my reading, merely that RAW is unclear. So either provide rules citation that clearly states that 'this power' in power descriptions refers to individual instance of the power rather than the power in general, or get down from that RAW high horse.

Sympathise, the style of debate can be annoying and seen as entirely arrogant, but to be fair this bit of your view is yet to be proven.

You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - again, I disagree with your reading that it is unclear, and have provided reasons as to why.

You have not provided any reasonable rules backing for you position. Your position is based on your assumption on what it means. (As is mine, but I don't claim my assumption is RAW.)
Your continued disparaging comments are tiresome, however.

How awful for you. In any case, I find you constant appeals to tenets of the forum while you blatantly fail to follow them your self amusing. However, the quality of the discussion might be improved if you stopped doing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 fuusa wrote:

Sympathise, the style of debate can be annoying and seen as entirely arrogant, but to be fair this bit of your view is yet to be proven.

Page 2. tells us how to treat multiple modifiers, that much is clear. However, if 'this power' in power descriptions refer to the power in general, rather than individual instance of the power, then we do not have multiple modifiers in the first place. Instead we basically have situation where a unit affected by Enfeeble suffers -1 to S and T, but that do not change if you have multiple Enfeebles. The unit is still either affected by Enfeeble or is it not, the state of being affected is binary.

For the page 2. to come to play in the first place 'this power' must refer to individual instances of the power, and then you could apply effects to each and use p 2. to combine them.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/13 11:56:34


   
Made in my
Tea-Kettle of Blood




Adelaide, South Australia

 Crimson wrote:
I said this hundreds of times by now: if 'this power' refers to the power in general they do not stack. You can have as many Enfeebles in effect on the unit as you like, and they do not stack.
So the RAW is inconclusive, there's no getting around that.


On thing I'd like to ask, Crimson, is if Enfeeble and other maledictions didn't have the ambiguous "this power" wording, would you say that they're stackable? In other words, do you think that the basic psychic power rules support maledictions being able to 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!" 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






 PrinceRaven wrote:

On thing I'd like to ask, Crimson, is if Enfeeble and other maledictions didn't have the ambiguous "this power" wording, would you say that they're stackable? In other words, do you think that the basic psychic power rules support maledictions being able to stack?

'Different powers' wording and some powers specifically saying that they stack while others don't would still make RAI somewhat muddy, but RAW case for stacking would be much stronger then, yes.

It is the RAW being properly unclear (due 'this power' wording) combined with the two other things I mentioned (that point towards RAI of non-stacking) that leads me to conclude that they should not to stack.

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Crimson - actually being polite isnt a tenet of this subforum, but a rule of the whole site. You fail to follow that.

I have provided rules backing for my argument, as per the tenets. You instead claim ambiguity, and claim "RAI" backing despite the explicit no-stack for special rules obliterating that as an argument.
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You also might have me confused with rigeld.

No, you said the T modifier applies to a non-existent characteristic, I don't recall you arguing the rest of the point.
If I am confusing you and rigeld, that means that you are off on a cruise that will be hit by a torpedo, sorry about that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
fuusa - -1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.

No stat = no modifier.

P3.
Vehicle characteristics, "... vehicles have many different rules and their OWN set of characteristics. ... described in the vehicles section (see P70)."
Emphasis mine.

P70.
Listed are bs, av, hp,and type.

There is no T stat at all, it is not undefined, it has no value or use.
It cannot be modified. A modifier cannot be applied to it.

 Crimson wrote:

Page 2. tells us how to treat multiple modifiers, that much is clear. However, if 'this power' in power descriptions refer to the power in general, rather than individual instance of the power, then we do not have multiple modifiers in the first place. Instead we basically have situation where a unit affected by Enfeeble suffers -1 to S and T, but that do not change if you have multiple Enfeebles. The unit is still either affected by Enfeeble or is it not, the state of being affected is binary.

For the page 2. to come to play in the first place 'this power' must refer to individual instances of the power, and then you could apply effects to each and use p 2. to combine them.

Yes, agreed, but that debate (the relevant one) has been sidelined and should be the main focus.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/13 12:37:46


You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




There is no listed T stat; meaning it is undefined. It was successfully modified.

-1and -1 is -2T. Done. Seriously.
   
Made in gb
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle




no idea

You cannot be serious!
If it's all as simple as you claim, special rules would work that way too, but they don't = P2 is not the be all and end all (which you have previously agreed to).
Or are you back-sliding on that?

You wart-ridden imbeciles! 
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - actually being polite isnt a tenet of this subforum, but a rule of the whole site. You fail to follow that.

Well, I'm not the one who constantly makes this personal, threatens to report others for imagined offences and calls others annoying.

I have provided rules backing for my argument, as per the tenets.

No you haven't. But please refresh my memory and tell me what rule you think shows that your reading is the only possible correct interpretation.

You instead claim ambiguity, and claim "RAI" backing despite the explicit no-stack for special rules obliterating that as an argument.

It doesn't obliterate it. (But it is true that if psychic powers had similar wording as special rules, then there would be no room for ambiguity.) Writing 'different' when you mean 'all' is not something a sensible person would do. It is an exception that proves the rule, just like the one in the fall back section relating to models moving through each other.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/13 12:51:29


   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 fuusa wrote:
You cannot be serious!
If it's all as simple as you claim, special rules would work that way too, but they don't = P2 is not the be all and end all (which you have previously agreed to).
Or are you back-sliding on that?

Special rules WOULD work that way - except they have an EXPLICIT statement saying otherwise

Found the explicit statement here? Given you have indeed claimed they are similar, failure to find suhc aan explicit statement would mean "would work that way to" can be applied to psychic powers.

So, found some denial?

Crimson - it would beworthwhile for you to go back to your earlier, very hostile posts and refresh your memory. Your personal attacks are very well documented here. Ignore.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






Well that's nice. I assume this means Nos has conceded that there is no rule that says 'this power' refers to individual casting of the power.

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Assume whatever you like, you woudl be wrong, the arguments have already been presented as to why you are wrong, and you havebnt rebutted with anything meaningful.

Just more insults and putting words in other peoples mouths. Classy.
   
Made in fi
Courageous Space Marine Captain






I have asked you multiple times to clarify your position, and you have refused to do so. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks that your presentation of your case is lacking. And I did not insult you.

   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

Perhaps you should review more than your own posts.
Edit: also I care nto one jot how many believe my position lacking, similarly a number find your position, and ability to paint others negatively when they disagree with you, lacking merit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/13 13:19:22


 
   
Made in us
Reverent Tech-Adept





nosferatu1001 wrote:


1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.



It is not that a vehicle's T stat is undefined - a vehicle doesn't have a T stat, so it can never be modified. If something doesn't have a brain, like a tree, you wouldn't suggest that the tree's IQ is 'undefined.'

Think first. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Phoenix, AZ, USA

Rapture wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:


1T was applied to the vehicle, and had no effect - the undefined T stat was altered.



It is not that a vehicle's T stat is undefined - a vehicle doesn't have a T stat, so it can never be modified. If something doesn't have a brain, like a tree, you wouldn't suggest that the tree's IQ is 'undefined.'

Bad example, as there are comparitive Intelligence Quotients for vegetation.

SJ

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.”
- Ephesians 6:12
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: