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 you still claim you can resolve, without resolving?

I apply enfeeble; the unit is now -1T. You have no permission to ignore that the unit is -1T from previously. You cannot "hold" this -1T somewhere, until you decide what to do with it - which is your claim

The second enfeeble comes along, you resolve the modifier and are now at -2T

Clear. Simple. Follows all the rules. DOesnt require made up rules.

My argument is not "in tatters", as unlike yours it does not create rules out of thin air. Continue to level petty insults all you like, it has no effect on the veracity of your claims.

Youre done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
@ sirlynchmob, so The terrain effect is on pages 32-43? or is it in a codex? I can not find it either of those places that we are told SR reside...

Clarify something please.

Do you mean to say, that all special rules are laid out or at least listed, in the special rules section, any that are not, will be in a codex?

That is the definition of a Special Rule, given already - it states EITHER they are in the BRB on the pages listed, OR will be made "abundantly" clear in the codex. This is NOT in a codex (and either way does not make it "abundanty clear" that it is a special rule) and is NOT on the pages listed, therefore it is not, by the definition given, a Special Rule

This is something else sirlynch is attempting to handwave away, as without it their argument crumbles even quicker

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you still claim you can resolve, without resolving?

I apply enfeeble; the unit is now -1T. You have no permission to ignore that the unit is -1T from previously. You cannot "hold" this -1T somewhere, until you decide what to do with it - which is your claim

The second enfeeble comes along, you resolve the modifier and are now at -2T

Clear. Simple. Follows all the rules. DOesnt require made up rules.

My argument is not "in tatters", as unlike yours it does not create rules out of thin air. Continue to level petty insults all you like, it has no effect on the veracity of your claims.

Youre done.

and what about the second half of the rule you keep refusing to follow ""treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain" does that part stack? so its -2T and 2 difficult terrains? you've already agreed the DT doesn't stack ergo you already know you don't get the second T modifier. Follow the entire rule, not just 1/2 of it because you also claim you don't resolve 1/2 a power.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fuusa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
@ sirlynchmob, so The terrain effect is on pages 32-43? or is it in a codex? I can not find it either of those places that we are told SR reside...

Clarify something please.

Do you mean to say, that all special rules are laid out or at least listed, in the special rules section, any that are not, will be in a codex?

That is the definition of a Special Rule, given already - it states EITHER they are in the BRB on the pages listed, OR will be made "abundantly" clear in the codex. This is NOT in a codex (and either way does not make it "abundanty clear" that it is a special rule) and is NOT on the pages listed, therefore it is not, by the definition given, a Special Rule

This is something else sirlynch is attempting to handwave away, as without it their argument crumbles even quicker

to take a page out of your argument, does it say those are the only two place you find special rules? Nope, just where to find the common ones and to remind you some abilities in codexes give them. So you'll never find any special rules in say a white dwarf? a insert in a building you just bought? a death from the skies book? apocalypse? anything from the imperial armor books that's not presented as a codex?

any special rules there I guess should just be ignored then as irrelevant then?

Theyre not special rules. Or, they have a special rule stating they are, specifically, and using specific > general you find out they are, and override the BRB at that point. Fairly straightforward.

How am I "REFUSING to follow" the second part? No, it doesnt stack, because it doesnt follow the rules on page 2. Sorry, I didnt think I would need tp point out that rules that show you how numbers work in 40k would apply to non-numbered effects.

You end up with "one" terrain effect, because 1 or 200 has the same in game effect. Unless you have another strawman you would like to posit that I can burn in a sentenc or two?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Theyre no longer special rules. Or, they have a special rule stating they are, specifically, and using specific > general you find out they are, and override the BRB at that point. Does this say so?

How am I "REFUSING to follow" the second part? No, it doesnt stack, because it doesnt follow the rules on page 2. Sorry, I didnt think I would need tp point out that rules that show you how numbers work in 40k would apply to non-numbered effects. I really, really didnt think it was necessary to explain that. Guess I was wrong.

It's just the one rule from enfeeble special or not, if you don't stack 1/2 the rule you don't stack the other half. Boy does your typing get bad when you know your wrong and feeling hostile.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you still claim you can resolve, without resolving?

I apply enfeeble; the unit is now -1T. You have no permission to ignore that the unit is -1T from previously. You cannot "hold" this -1T somewhere, until you decide what to do with it - which is your claim

No it isn't, where have I said that?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The second enfeeble comes along, you resolve the modifier and are now at -2T

Not if the effects of same powers are not cumulative, you don't.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Clear. Simple. Follows all the rules. DOesnt require made up rules.

Clear, simple, involves ignoring permissions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
My argument is not "in tatters", as unlike yours it does not create rules out of thin air. Continue to level petty insults all you like, it has no effect on the veracity of your claims.

What have I created, go on tell me, there is nothing I have created, I followed the permissions as they are in the book, you don't, that speaks volumes about how wrong you are.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Youre done.

Explain, that looks meaningless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
@ sirlynchmob, so The terrain effect is on pages 32-43? or is it in a codex? I can not find it either of those places that we are told SR reside...

Clarify something please.

Do you mean to say, that all special rules are laid out or at least listed, in the special rules section, any that are not, will be in a codex?

That is the definition of a Special Rule, given already - it states EITHER they are in the BRB on the pages listed, OR will be made "abundantly" clear in the codex. This is NOT in a codex (and either way does not make it "abundanty clear" that it is a special rule) and is NOT on the pages listed, therefore it is not, by the definition given, a Special Ruler

Same question for you then.
Are there no special rules, that are not either defined, or at least listed on pages 38-43, or in a codex?
Is that what you think?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This is something else sirlynch is attempting to handwave away, as without it their argument crumbles even quicker

Hand wave away, in the same manner you hand wave away specific written permissions and the lack of same permissions???

the stackers are playing 5th ed rules, plain and simple,

there is not a single actual RAW rule that gives same powers permission to stack,

again, no one needs to list a RAW restriction on the cumulative nature same powers, you need to quote RAW permission for such,

what we have instead is quoteing other rules, such as permission to cast, then handwaving them away as permission to be cumulative, which they are most certainly not.


allowing that power to be in effect, it is not permission to apply that power "cumulatively"

neither is permission to cast a power, permision for it to be cumulative with itself,

sirlynchmob wrote:
if you don't stack 1/2 the rule you don't stack the other half.

Why not?
Let's say I have two powers. 1 (we'll call Enfeeble) says -1 T, and Slow and Purposeful. The other (we'll call Really Enfeebled) says -2 T, and Slow and Purposeful.

Does that mean since 1/2 of the powers do not stack I cannot stack the other half (even though they are two different powers)?

I'm sorry but stacking is different from resolving.
If you are given permission to stack a power the modifier stacks as per page 2. We are able to resolve the powers most of the time no matter if they are cumulative or not (unless a psychic test failed or DTW, etc-I'm sure there may be more exceptions).
Two powers can grant the same SR, but an additional SR does not grant any additional effects. Both can be resolved but they are not cumulative- you cannot "gain the benefit" of more than one of the same SR


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should really provide some more RAW excerpts for this, I currently don't have my BRB so I'll do that later

 fuusa wrote:

Same question for you then.
Are there no special rules, that are not either defined, or at least listed on pages 38-43, or in a codex?
Is that what you think?

Well that is what the rules on page 32 say...

Special rules are either on Pages 32-43 or made abundantly clear in the codex...

Those are the only to places we are told Special Rules reside, so those places are the only places to find Special Rules.

 fuusa wrote:
Clear, simple, involves ignoring permissions.

We have permission to cast enfeeble on a single unit from two different Psykers though.

 fuusa wrote:
Hand wave away, in the same manner you hand wave away specific written permissions and the lack of same permissions???

As Above, We have permission...

 easysauce wrote:
the stackers are playing 5th ed rules, plain and simple,

there is not a single actual RAW rule that gives same powers permission to stack,

again, no one needs to list a RAW restriction on the cumulative nature same powers, you need to quote RAW permission for such,

what we have instead is quoteing other rules, such as permission to cast, then handwaving them away as permission to be cumulative, which they are most certainly not,

100% false.

 easysauce wrote:
allowing that power to be in effect, it is not permission to apply that power "cumulatively"

neither is permission to cast a power, permision for it to be cumulative with itself,

It actually is, as two different castings have two effects and as per P.2 4-1-1=2...

sirlynchmob wrote:
It's just the one rule from enfeeble special or not, if you don't stack 1/2 the rule you don't stack the other half.

Citation needed.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Boy does your typing get bad when you know your wrong and feeling hostile.

This was not at all needed, it also does not follow the forum rules.

sirlynchmob wrote:
to take a page out of your argument, does it say those are the only two place you find special rules? Nope, just where to find the common ones and to remind you some abilities in codexes give them. So you'll never find any special rules in say a white dwarf? a insert in a building you just bought? a death from the skies book? apocalypse? anything from the imperial armor books that's not presented as a codex?

any special rules there I guess should just be ignored then as irrelevant then?

Page 32 lists where Special rules are. It only lists the pages 32-43 and Codexes (Which will make it abundantly clear that it is a special rule) We are told that these are the places to find Special rules. Why would we look elsewhere for SR's? we are not told they reside anywhere but the two places listed...

sirlynchmob wrote:
Does maledictions say it inflicts rules? nope, just inflicts special rules..

Demonstrably false...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
the stackers are playing 5th ed rules, plain and simple,

there is not a single actual RAW rule that gives same powers permission to stack,

again, no one needs to list a RAW restriction on the cumulative nature same powers, you need to quote RAW permission for such,

what we have instead is quoteing other rules, such as permission to cast, then handwaving them away as permission to be cumulative, which they are most certainly not,

100% false.

Not to be TFG but make sure to justify you reasoning of why he is false- good way of making this thread a place of debate instead of simple argument.

Also, in a general view of manifesting a power I see how you determine that same power's stack. But what about the more specific details represented in the section of resolving to stack. I will say that having no denial nor permission does not encourage either to be chosen. So RAI are you saying the general rule trump what could be deduced from "different powers are cumulative"?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Does maledictions say it inflicts rules? nope, just inflicts special rules..

Demonstrably false...

So this RAW line on pg 68 is a lie?
"reducing their characteristics OR inflicting penalizing SPECIAL RULES"

We agree the difficult terrain is a rule, maledictions state specifically and unequivocally, it's a special rule.

@happyjew We have an power called enfeeble (E) enfeeble on a unit does (A)

E=A
A is made up of 3 parts xyz so we have
E=A and A=xyz or just E=xyz

Everyone agrees Z is non cumulative. as Z is non cumulative A can not be cumulative. As A is not cumulative E is not cumulative.

The argument that you can not resolve just 1/2 a power is made by the stacking side. and I agree with it. E as a whole is either cumulative or not you can't pick and choose which ones you want to be cumulative.

so to be cumulative we need to get EE=XXYYZZ and everyone agrees ZZ is not possible ergo XX & YY are not allowable either.

I'm not talking about Enfeeble and Enfeeble. I'm talking about Enfeeble and Really Enfeebled, two (made up) powers that inflict both a modifier and special rule. In my scenario you have
E=AB (where A is a modifier, and B is a special rule) and
R=AB (where A is a modifier and B is a special rule).

According to your "logic" A is not cumulative because B is not cumulative, despite being two completely different powers.

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm not talking about Enfeeble and Enfeeble. I'm talking about Enfeeble and Really Enfeebled, two (made up) powers that inflict both a modifier and special rule. In my scenario you have
E=AB (where A is a modifier, and B is a special rule) and
R=AB (where A is a modifier and B is a special rule).

According to your "logic" A is not cumulative because B is not cumulative, despite being two completely different powers.

that is not an apt comparison to what is going on. You should just have E=A and R=A What A does is the special rule. Because they both have the same power you should define R completely. Because we can have a different discussion on weather or not having one "the power" in effect prevents any other "the power" from stacking with it. Which is why I keep using Enfeeble in 2 different contexts, because I believe that to be the RAI. But assuming E and R are totally different and they each grant the same rule we're really back to square one, same rules aren't cumulative or ER=A. But like I said that's not what happening here.

E is the same as E, it has no permission to be cumulative and A is definitely the same as A, and a special rule so it is non cumulative. We can't split stealth into it's modifier (+1 cover) and the rule (6+ cover save in open terrain) we can't take just the modifier out of enfeeble. Enfeeble does 1 thing to a target unit (A) made up of 3 parts (XYZ). So you'll never get more than E=A

Sirlynch - reported, for again failing to abide by rule 1

Where does it say it is one rule? I see at least two.

You also entirely failed to read HJs example.

fuusa - nope, you are still creating a requirement - that you dont resolve, you "stack" enfeeble on top of enfeeble. But the game is sequential here - i cast enfeeble, the unit IS -1T. Fact.

I cast again. T hey are -2T now. Fact

Apparntly you will happily make up rules, and denigrate others, while pretending you are on the high ground in the debate. You arent.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Our argument that Nos and others refuse to address directly is niether side has specific permission or denial. But the phrasing in blessings and maledictions indicates that same named powers should not stack. Which is further bolstered by the specific exceptions on some blessings and maledictions and the lack of this specific exception on others.

That is not true at all.

Different powers stack Does not = same powers do not stack.

No matter how much you think it does.

Rather than use your "nah-uhh" argument perhaps you should back up your counter claim. Much like I've done by clearly laying out my argument and backing it up with other citations.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I cast again. T hey are -2T now. Fact

RAI

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Does maledictions say it inflicts rules? nope, just inflicts special rules..

Demonstrably false...

So this RAW line on pg 68 is a lie?
"reducing their characteristics OR inflicting penalizing SPECIAL RULES"

We agree the difficult terrain is a rule, maledictions state specifically and unequivocally, it's a special rule.

No, the blurb on page 68 is just a simple explanation of what the Special Rules on pages 32-43 and in the Codexes do.

DT is a rule, Enfeeble, when cast is a rule. It is not in a Codex and it is not on page 32-43 so it is not a Special Rule, just a rule (An advanced rule that over-rides the basic rule about open terrain converting it to difficult).

This is what you are not understanding. Special Rules are on Pages 32-43 or in a Codex, that is the only places we find Special Rules.

 chillis wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I cast again. T hey are -2T now. Fact

RAI

Explicit RAW as well.

 Bausk wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Our argument that Nos and others refuse to address directly is niether side has specific permission or denial. But the phrasing in blessings and maledictions indicates that same named powers should not stack. Which is further bolstered by the specific exceptions on some blessings and maledictions and the lack of this specific exception on others.

That is not true at all.

Different powers stack Does not = same powers do not stack.

No matter how much you think it does.

Rather than use your "nah-uhh" argument perhaps you should back up your counter claim. Much like I've done by clearly laying out my argument and backing it up with other citations.

I did, note the underlined.

If you understand English you will understand that the phrase 'Different powers stack' is completely different than the phrase 'Same powers do not stack'

RAW modifiers stack, RAI is saying that the same power stacks. Do not state your position as fact. If it were fact there wouldn't be 19 pages and leads this thread in the path of argument versus debate.

No, RAW is saying that when resolving the effects of a psychic power, you treat multiple modifiers as per page 2.

This bizarre, made up notion that you consider "Enfeeble", and not the actual effects, when resolving - IS completely made up.

People then ask for proof that this made up standard has permission.

Your statement is the subject of dispute Reaper. I've stated my interpretation and backed it up with citations. You're simply attempting to state your interpretation as fact without citations or any real argument backing it up.


Sad to see Nos is still clinging to page two rather than address something that's relevant.

No terms can be made when you can not see things as RAI. play it as you want it for I'm sure a situation will never arise where I have the option to play against you.

-It is also unprofessional to target the opposing side as bizarre/unrealistic when it is justifiably rational as I can see the rational in the way that you have arrived in your conclusion.

 chillis wrote:
RAW modifiers stack, RAI is saying that the same power stacks. Do not state your position as fact. If it were fact there wouldn't be 19 pages and leads this thread in the path of argument versus debate.

A unit has enfeeble resolved on it and gone from t4 to t3. Another psyker targets them with enfeeble and passes all associated rolls to resolve it. The unit was t3 and is now t2.

Permissions are granted to complete all these steps. What rule was broken along the way?

This is quite literally RAW. Rules as written provide permissions to expend warp charge, target a unit, and resolve the power. The rules as written process for doing this a second time with a different psyker is no different than the first time, with no new restrictions.

Since permission is granted at every step, you need an actual rule in writing that is being broken to stop the second resolution.

The more specific resolving of psychic powers that states different psychic powers stack that is RAI- the part that lays out how the process actually works


Automatically Appended Next Post:
resolving is different from stacking

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You end up with "one" terrain effect, because 1 or 200 has the same in game effect.

Yep. Exactly like the psychic powers are either in effect or not, and it doesn't matter whether there is one or 200.

 Bausk wrote:
Your statement is the subject of dispute Reaper. I've stated my interpretation and backed it up with citations. You're simply attempting to state your interpretation as fact without citations or any real argument backing it up.

That is not true at all, there are plenty of citations in this very thread that backs my position. The opposition is ignoring them, so there can be no further debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You end up with "one" terrain effect, because 1 or 200 has the same in game effect.

Yep. Exactly like the psychic powers are either in effect or not, and it doesn't matter whether there is one or 200.

Yes, and if you have 2 powers in effect you have 1 terrain effect and -1T for the first one, and and 1 terrain effect and -1T for the second one.

P2 says the -1's stack, but the terrain effect is not a number therefore by definition can not stack.

Lets clear it up for hyvemynd who seems to have missed a few pages of the discussion.

Targeting and page two are not in dispute. It has also been proven that you can resolve a power to no effect as per targeting a vehicle twice with enfeeble.

What is in dispute is the permission for multiple same named blessings and maledictions to stack without an exception in their powers rules.

While I maintain there is no express permission or denial in the rules the wording in blessings and maledictions indicates that same named powers should not stack unless they have an exception in their rules. this stance is backed by some, but notably not all blessings and maledictipns having such an exception wrtten into their rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reaper: what citations? Please feel free to list them.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Yes, and if you have 2 powers in effect you have 1 terrain effect and -1T for the first one, and and 1 terrain effect and -1T for the second one.

Except when they're the same power. Enfeeble either is in effect or is not.

 Bausk wrote:
Lets clear it up for hyvemynd who seems to have missed a few pages of the discussion.

Targeting and page two are not in dispute. It has also been proven that you can resolve a power to no effect as per targeting a vehicle twice with enfeeble.

What is in dispute is the permission for multiple same named blessings and maledictions to stack without an exception in their powers rules.

While I maintain there is no express permission or denial in the rules the wording in blessings and maledictions indicates that same named powers should not stack unless they have an exception in their rules. this stance is backed by some, but notably not all blessings and maledictipns having such an exception wrtten into their rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reaper: what citations? Please feel free to list them.

So basically an entire argument for intent by your own admission.

Explicit permission is not required as resolution and multiple modifiers provide permission to resolve -1 two times. And you admit there is no restriction on resolving -1 twice. To stop this process you would need explicit restriction to override the inherent permission of resolving two -1 multiple modifiers.

Using "different maledictions are cumulative" as an argument against similar powers is intent since there isn't a single rule restricting to multiple modifier process for similar powers. That sentence can also be parsed as "additional maledictions are cumulative" with a dictionary synonym for "different". Reminders worded in other powers for cumulative resolution are also dismissed as intent because they don't address the powers in question, and codexes have different authors across different editions.

So your interpretation is that they went out of their way to state different powers are cumulative, a statement more obvious than saying the same powers are cumulative, but neglected to mention that the same powers are cumulative?

Then in the powers decided to only put reminders on some but not all powers even written by the same author?

Seems a little flimsy as an argument of intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And my admission is nothing prevents multiple modifiers from beinf cumulative, however before two modifiers from powers can be considered seperate modifiers the powers themselve need to be considered. cumulative. Thus why page two is pointless in this discussion as its not disputed.

My judgement for this thread is that it should end.

Both sides should bring upon a summation of their logic in why or why it does not stack without attacking the other view point.

Another thread with a poll and the supporting information for both sides should then be made, It will be like the enfeeble poll thread, but more informative.