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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. I clarified it on more than one occasion. I guess you missed it.

No I didn't. And for the record, I re-read every one of your posts in this bloody thread. You have absolutely no rules backing for your interpretation of 'this power' and are arguing HYWPI as RAW, being in blatant violation of those tenets you love to pummel others with.

 fuusa wrote:

 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?

Sorry if I portrayed myself as anti-stacking. I'm undecided in the manner because I can't see any definite evidence for the wording to mean something specifically. I just don't support the use of page 2, or the fact that its the main debate, to prove stacking of powers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

Just curious, how will you guys actually play it, as so far every game of 6th I have played allows this stacking?

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

That's actually not correct, as the BRB defines the lower save as better/improved.

Adding one or two to a save improves the save and as such lowers the save from 5 to 3 by modifying it by +2

"unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+." (P. 2)

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

Ah, this old argument of yours again, one that was disproved every time you raised it. No, 5+2 is not 7 when dealing with saves, because it talks about improving, and we know, as in literally KNOW, that that would be the opposite of improving it.

Keep spouting this argument, as many times as you like, it will get knocked back every time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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.

From the last poll your edit was the most accurate thing you've said so far.

But you can't use pg 2 on it's own as permission for anything. The rules give us the modifiers and tell us how to use them.

Pg 2 says if you go to ground in area terrain you cover save gets worse because 5 +2 =7.

the math works and pg 2 agrees so that must be RAW right?

So unless you apply pg 2 and the math argument equally throughout all the rules I don't buy it as permission for anything.

The point is the rules tell us what modifiers you get to use and how to use them.

and no where in the psychic section of the rules, nor in the area where you pick your powers ever even hint that the same power would stack with itself.

That's actually not correct, as the BRB defines the lower save as better/improved.

Adding one or two to a save improves the save and as such lowers the save from 5 to 3 by modifying it by +2

"unlike other characteristics, the lower an Armour save is, the better. A model can never have an Armour Save better than 2+." (P. 2)

what does that have to do with the math? Where is this inverse math explained on pg 2? That's quite the HIWPI assumption you're making there. where on pg 2 does it indicate anything other that 5+2=7? When it even states you can affect a characteristic negatively by adding to it. We have a value of 5, your assuming +2 means to make it better, because nothing on pg 91 says improve or make better.

So first you need the rules from the proper section, which needs to grant you 2 modifiers before you can use pg 2 to do the math right?

What doe that have to do with -1 and -1 not equalling -2?

Do you have a point, or is this more of your trolling?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What doe that have to do with -1 and -1 not equalling -2?

Do you have a point, or is this more of your trolling?

if 5+2 =\= 7, because rules trump math. then -1 + -1 =\= -2. Especially when the rules only grant a single -1.

edit
Oh and I love how you criticize others for violating the tenants, yet you think it's ok for you to do so.
why don't you correct yourself here:

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

so accusing people of trolling is polite now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey nos what do you think the context of this line is in regards to the rest of the psykers section?

under resolving power
"unless otherwise stated the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"

"tenets"

The context is exactly what it states - in this case, contextually it is a reminder.

But you know that - we've been here before. You have no argument against that, you just repeat it hoping others will believe it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"tenets"

The context is exactly what it states - in this case, contextually it is a reminder.

But you know that - we've been here before. You have no argument against that, you just repeat it hoping others will believe it.

Don't apply your faulty logic onto me. That looks like your entire methodology in all of these rules threads.

It's a reminder? lol. It's a rule under resolving powers. But whatever you play it however you like.

Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

contextually the denial under special rules applies to psychic powers as well.

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

contextually the denial under special rules applies to psychic powers as well.

How? Last I checked, Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lol - faulty?

Detail the fault. Contextually it acts as a reminder - the denial of permission under Special Rules is what is needed.

It is incredibly faulty logic to do as you are claiming, and take a statement A implies B, and from that get thast B implies A. That is at least missing middle.

contextually the denial under special rules applies to psychic powers as well.

How? Last I checked, Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules.

pg 2, what 2 things can modify characteristics? SR's & wargear. Either enfeeble is a SR as a ongoing effect, or it doesn't modify the characteristic.

pg 32, you have the list of SR's, and are told there are others, as in any ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. We are also told models might gain special rules as the result of a psychic power. Like being in open terrain and having to treat it as difficult.

Then we have the psykers section which goes out of its way to make a point that different powers are cumulative. the idea of only different psychic powers stacking is also supported by the newer codexes that specifically state when one can stack with itself.

If each enfeeble was it's own different power, than could a psyker with 3 warp charges cast 3 enfeebles? so enfeeble is the same as enfeeble.
also supported by pg 418 where different psykers can have the same powers.

There is a definite dichotomy set up for same power & different powers based on the name of the power alone. With a rule to allow different ones to be cumulative and 2 more notes to support that rule.

contextually and RAI, only different psychic powers stack.

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2, what 2 things can modify characteristics? SR's & wargear. Either enfeeble is a SR as a ongoing effect, or it doesn't modify the characteristic.

I don't see anything saying only wargear or special rules can modify characteristics. If it said "Only certain pieces of wargear or special rules..." then you might have an argument there.

pg 32, you have the list of SR's, and are told there are others, as in any ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. We are also told models might gain special rules as the result of a psychic power. Like being in open terrain and having to treat it as difficult.

So common special rules are listed starting on pages 32-43 of the rulebook. I don't see "Psychic Powers" listed there. Furthermore, I do not see "Psychic Powers" listed as a special rule under Hive Tyrants.

Then we have the psykers section which goes out of its way to make a point that different powers are cumulative. the idea of only different psychic powers stacking is also supported by the newer codexes that specifically state when one can stack with itself.

Right, different powers can stack. As has been pointed out the fact that different powers can stack does not mean the same power cannot stack. Unless you have a rule saying otherwise?

If each enfeeble was it's own different power, than could a psyker with 3 warp charges cast 3 enfeebles? so enfeeble is the same as enfeeble.
also supported by pg 418 where different psykers can have the same powers.

Which has nothing to do with Psychic Powers being special rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2, what 2 things can modify characteristics? SR's & wargear. Either enfeeble is a SR as a ongoing effect, or it doesn't modify the characteristic.

I don't see anything saying only wargear or special rules can modify characteristics. If it said "Only certain pieces of wargear or special rules..." then you might have an argument there.

The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

So you're objection is "it doesn't say I can't"?

So were left with RAW:

1) enfeeble can not modify characteristics as it's not a special rule.

or

2) Enfeeble is a special rule so it can modify characteristics which means it is also bound by the limitations of pg 32.

I say 2 makes the most sense.

Ok so bickering aside, as I asked before.
How will you guys actually play it, as every 6th game I.have played allows stacking

 Formosa wrote:
Ok so bickering aside, as I asked before.
How will you guys actually play it, as every 6th game I.have played allows stacking

look for the poll, it was 51% no stacking, 49% yes they stack.

so it really comes down to who you're playing with or what the TO says.

If it actually ever comes up in one of my games, I'll tell my opponent "no, they don't stack"

I'd definitely play it as non-stacking.

Wow pretty much even then, Defo needs an faq

sirlynchmob wrote:

The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

So you're objection is "it doesn't say I can't"?

So were left with RAW:

1) enfeeble can not modify characteristics as it's not a special rule.

or

2) Enfeeble is a special rule so it can modify characteristics which means it is also bound by the limitations of pg 32.

I say 2 makes the most sense.

Seems reasonable to me.

sirlynchmob wrote:
The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

You know what else can modify characteristics and is not a special rule or piece of wargear? Psychic Powers.

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The part your missing is "wargear or special rules CAN modify a characteristic" It's right there those are the only 2 things with permission to modify characteristics.

You know what else can modify characteristics and is not a special rule or piece of wargear? Psychic Powers.

You know what has permission to bend or break the main rules? Special rules. do you know what doesn't have that permission? Psychic powers.

so units under enfeeble don't have to treat open terrain as difficult right?

Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

 Happyjew wrote:
Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

I said psychic powers can modify characteristics because they are special rules.

Hey you called maledictions special rules. Thanks for agreeing with me. Welcome to the no stacking side.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

I said psychic powers can modify characteristics because they are special rules.

Hey you called maledictions special rules. Thanks for agreeing with me. Welcome to the no stacking side.

Where did I say Maledictions are special rules? I said they can modify characteristics (even though they are not wargear or special rules).

 Happyjew wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Well lets see.
Blessings - grant extra abilities to allies such as characteristic boosts or additional special rules.
Maledictions - weakens enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting penalising special rules.

So I guess Psychic powers do have permission to modify characteristics. How convenient that you left that out.

I said psychic powers can modify characteristics because they are special rules.

Hey you called maledictions special rules. Thanks for agreeing with me. Welcome to the no stacking side.

Where did I say Maledictions are special rules? I said they can modify characteristics (even though they are not wargear or special rules).

I bolded & underlined the part where you said special rules. I congratulate you, I think you found the final nail to put an end to the idea that they stack.

Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

 grendel083 wrote:
Saying Psychic powers can GRANT Special Rules is not the same as saying Psychic powers ARE Special Rules.
Read what he wrote again...

It's the same thing that's on pg 32, models get special rules as the result of psychic powers.

so the enfeeble special rule is -1 T & difficult terrain.

so as that is the special rule granted from the psychic power it doesn't stack with itself as per the rules on pg 32.