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.

DeathReaper no one is saying the rules don't include redundant reminders so why bring that up? Presumably because you know your argument has no grounds and you're trying to hand wave it away?

It is not a redundant reminder though it is a specific subset reminder that strongly implies the same powers don't stack. So again I ask you which is it:

1) Whoever wrote the Psychic Powers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.

Which is it Death Reaper?

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It only implies a restriction if you don't understand basic logic,.

We understand basic logic just fine. You however do not seem to understand how language is actually used. "Parking allowed on Sundays" pretty strongly implies that it is not allowed on other days of the week.

Actually, it does not necessarily imply that. It simply means somebody wanted to make sure you knew parking was allowed on Sundays. I would park in that lot on any day of the week as long as there isn't some other sign telling me not to. If they wanted to limit me from parking other times, they would have said "Parking only allowed on Sundays".

Yep, redundant language is used all over the book. Apparently THIS redundancy is special. Because.

I've seen throug quotes that Fling is trying for yet more false dichotomies.

 FlingitNow wrote:
DeathReaper no one is saying the rules don't include redundant reminders so why bring that up? Presumably because you know your argument has no grounds and you're trying to hand wave it away?

It is not a redundant reminder though it is a specific subset reminder that strongly implies the same powers don't stack. So again I ask you which is it:

1) Whoever wrote the Psychic Powers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.

Which is it Death Reaper?

As I have said it is neither of those options.

It is a redundant reminder, like so many others.

They wrote a misleading reminder, it was probably unintentional.

As I have said it is neither of those options.

It is a redundant reminder, like so many others

It is not as you well know. The wording different was put in for a reason that reason is according to you not the obvious one to mean not the same then why. Why did they use the wording different. If they meant all powers are cumulative why tell you that different ones are? Why use that wording when they simply could have removed that word and it would have still been the redundant reminder you claim but not deliberately misleading.

Find another example where a redundant reminder is misleading in this way anywhere in the rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Off the top of my head; endurance, prescience, guide, catalyst, onslaught, foreboding, perfect timing, telekine dome and invisibility are all clearly non-cumulativewith themselves

So you're basically on the non-stacking side except for the odd case where they don't contain the "whilst this power is in effect" wording. Correct? In which case the wording of different would make a difference as these powers could be said to be cumulative with themselves without it.

I'm cool with that and see nothing inherently wrong with that interpretation (as the wording of different has a purpose, other than to deliberately mislead) there's a lack of consistency for my liking but handling differently worded powers differently makes sense.

My position is that powers with potentially stackable effects are cumulative with themselves as long as they don't have wording that stops them from being cumulative. When it comes to "whilst the power is in effect" powers, the wording could stop them from being cumulative, but depending on your interpretation it also could not. It's frustratingly vague and ambiguous. I generally play it as non-stacking but I'm open to other people's interpretation and if my opponent brings it up pre-game I'll just play it however they do.

In case you genuinely don't get this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...

And this would be equivalent if the reminder said: "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your vehicles "

 Crimson wrote:
In case you genuinely don't get this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...

And this would be equivalent if the reminder said: "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your vehicles "

I was simply pointing out that it was a redundant reminder, as reminders tend to be...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
In case you genuinely don't get this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...

And this would be equivalent if the reminder said: "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your vehicles "

I was simply pointing out that it was a redundant reminder, as reminders tend to be...

And as pointed out no one is claiming GW doesn't have redundant reminders in their rules. Now do you have an actual example from anywhere else in the rules where there is a deliberately misleading example?

The rules for grounding are pretty misleading, as pre-FAQ they indicated that you would remain swooping even if you were grounded.

 FlingitNow wrote:
And as pointed out no one is claiming GW doesn't have redundant reminders in their rules. Now do you have an actual example from anywhere else in the rules where there is a deliberately misleading example?

I do not think they were being deliberately misleading, I think they tried to convey what they were saying, poorly.

However there is another one

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1." (68)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
And as pointed out no one is claiming GW doesn't have redundant reminders in their rules. Now do you have an actual example from anywhere else in the rules where there is a deliberately misleading example?

I do not think they were being deliberately misleading, I think they tried to convey what they were saying, poorly.

Which is what exactly?

However there is another one

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1." (68)

That's the same example and again note the consistent wording of different...

You do understand that is a different example right?

If only we knew if "different maledictions" means different types of maledictions or different castings of any malediction even if it is the same....

gg GW gg

blaktoof wrote:
If only we knew if "different maledictions" means different types of maledictions or different castings of any malediction even if it is the same....

gg GW gg

Which of course doesn't matter because they don't say "only different maledictions..."

Yep; the entire non-stack is based on inferring a restriction from something that is functionally a reminder.

False dichotomies aside, that's what it boils down to, every time

 DeathReaper wrote:
You do understand that is a different example right?

You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep; the entire non-stack is based on inferring a restriction from something that is functionally a reminder.

False dichotomies aside, that's what it boils down to, every time

Where as the entire stacking argument boils down to completely ignoring the fact that single time they talk about powers being cumulative they refer to different powers. Whilst banding the rest of their argument on a mixture of "it doesn't say I can't" & "A implies A"...

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You do understand that is a different example right?

You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...

There are two examples, they are not identical examples...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You do understand that is a different example right?

You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...

There are two examples, they are not identical examples...

They are both talking about the same rule though. If you can't see that I can't help you.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
You do understand that is a different example right?

You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...

There are two examples, they are not identical examples...

They are both talking about the same rule though. If you can't see that I can't help you.

One is in regards to Blessings. One is in regards to Maledictions, If you can't see that I can't help you.

Ones in regard to all psychic powers the other in relation to the subset maledictions. It is also repeated for the subset blessings. But the first one is about all psychic powers.

That's the crux of the argument. What are they referring to when they (gw) used the word different.

It's ridicules if we continue to go round and round about this topic because quite simply put both sides think they are right but the ambiguity allows the argument.

HIPI is they don't stack simply because it breaks the game IMHO, and nothing displeases me more than broken games.

How do I determine if it's broken rule? Will it take the fun away for me or my opponent? If yes then it's broken.

It is a functional rule, and you are told that 1+1 functions as you would expect it to.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)

Well Fire shield is a blessing, so it lasts as long as any other blessing til the end of the following turn.

The 4+ cover save has no self determined expiration time and is stated outside of the 'while this power is in effect' wording. Fire Shield is not in itself a cover save. It grants a cover save to the unit, by all appearance, permanently. There is nothing stating that when the Fire Shield wears off, the 4+ cover save goes away. The other effect of the power however is contingent upon Fire Shield being 'in effect' and so expires along with it.

So I ask, why do you thing the cover save is limited to 'while the power is in effect'?

If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.

Wow, up to 10 pages now? I can't believe this argument is still going.

Seriously, you either have Hammerhand active, or you don't. It's a bit of a stretch to claim multiple castings of the same with cumulative effects.

If that's how some people want to play it, that's up to them but it tells me a lot about what type of player they are.

I'll be sticking to the rules however which give no permission for Hammerhand to stack.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.

Since wounds and hull points modify the units profile explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Wow, up to 10 pages now? I can't believe this argument is still going.

Seriously, you either have Hammerhand active, or you don't. It's a bit of a stretch to claim multiple castings of the same with cumulative effects.

If that's how some people want to play it, that's up to them but it tells me a lot about what type of player they are.

I'll be sticking to the rules however which give no permission for Hammerhand to stack.

The rules already given prove you to be wrong.

Stop inserting bias on others, it is really bad form, and leads to people using the Ignore function or the yellow triangle of friendship.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.

Since wounds and hull points modify the units profile explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.

So you're saying that the benefits and drawbacks from maledictions and blessings are dependent on the power being 'active' on the unit even if the effect does not say 'while this power is in effect'?