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.

 Happyjew wrote:
I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?

So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?

Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.

Is wounding a Special Rule, or a basic rule? Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.

SJ

...Really?

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.

SJ

...Really?

Page 43 !

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?

So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?

Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.

Is wounding a Special Rule, or a basic rule? Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.

SJ

wounding is a basic rule. pg 44 first sentence.

If this is the sort of arguments you need to go to, to make your case, than I can safely say 100% raw psychic powers don't stack.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?

So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?

Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.

Is wounding a Special Rule, or a basic rule? Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.

SJ

wounding is a basic rule. pg 44 first sentence.

If this is the sort of arguments you need to go to, to make your case, than I can safely say 100% raw psychic powers don't stack.

If wounding is a basic rule, then you use it wounding to disprove the non-stacking argument is fallacious. And you can safely say psychic powers don't stack, because you would be 100% correct per RAW.

SJ

Except there is no rules at all that say that psychic powers don't stack. There needs to be a rule stating this for them not to stack because we are given permission to cast and resolve two psychic powers on the same target unit.

I think this whole argument is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding on how a permissive ruleset operates.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I think this while argument is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding on how a permissive ruleset operates.

Whom was this directed at?

The non-stacking side and their assumption.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The non-stacking side and their assumption.

Okay, that makes sense then.

Or the stacking side and their assumptions.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Or the stacking side and their assumptions.

SJ

What assumptions? I do not see any assumptions on the stacking side. Since they have actual rules that back their position.

It still looks to me like the whole non-stacking side bases their argument on the one line in the BRB about "different" powers stacking, assuming in the process that, as I read somewhere, "GW would not intentionally include such a misleading statement".

The assumption here is that GW is actually good at clear rules-writing. The size of this subforum proves that is not the case.

I firmly stand on the side of DeathReaper et al here.

Baktru wrote:
It still looks to me like the whole non-stacking side bases their argument on the one line in the BRB about "different" powers stacking, assuming in the process that, as I read somewhere, "GW would not intentionally include such a misleading statement".

The assumption here is that GW is actually good at clear rules-writing. The size of this subforum proves that is not the case.

I firmly stand on the side of DeathReaper et al here.

It's three lines actually. One in Resolve Psychic Power, one in Blessings, and one in Maledictions. All of which explicitly call out different powers as cumulative. And then, as extra support, a line in the Chaos Space Marine codex Gift of Contagion power that explicitly makes it cumulative with itself. All of which would be irrelevant, and in fact out right misleading, if all psychic powers were cumulative (whether the same or different) by default.

You say that like the rulebook isn't full of rules that are irrelevant and misleading.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You say that like the rulebook isn't full of rules that are irrelevant and misleading.

I can't think of any off the top of my head. Do you have any examples of rules that are meaningless as printed in the book? Specifically ones that don't include language to make it obviously a reminder such as "Remember ..." or "This means ..."

So you want examples of reminders that aren't reminders?

There are plenty of examples of poorly written rules that never got an FAQ, simply being on YMDC for a while should show that. Intervening units and cover saves, Tank Hunter, Melta, etc. against Buildings, Battle Brothers and Transports, fortification cover saves, blinding tests...

Chrysis - yet the special rules section specifically states them cannot stack. So we know they can type that phrase, meaning assuming they meant for powers to not stack means they are being deliberately misleading.

Chrysis - yet the special rules section specifically states them cannot stack. So we know they can type that phrase, meaning assuming they meant for powers to not stack means they are being deliberately misleading.

We all know GW write clumsy rules and forget to tell us stuff they expect us to know (what an Infantry unit is, how Grav weapons work against mixed save units etc). So them missing it out is not intentionally misleading at all it is at best sloppy that they didn't put that reminder in like they did in the special rules section.

That is entirely different to specifically calling out a specific subset every single time they talk about Psychic powers stacking. Your inability to acknowledge that clear and obvious fact illustrates that you are arguing just for the sake of it as you know your position is untenable. This ludicrous post by you just further highlights that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So you want examples of reminders that aren't reminders?

There are plenty of examples of poorly written rules that never got an FAQ, simply being on YMDC for a while should show that. Intervening units and cover saves, Tank Hunter, Melta, etc. against Buildings, Battle Brothers and Transports, fortification cover saves, blinding tests...

Just an example of a reminder that is intentionally misleading like this one. For instance if in the Ork Codex above every weapon profile it said "an Ork Loota fires this weapon with the following profile" it would strongly imply that no one other than a Loota could fire that weapon profile.

Literally every single time GW talk about powers stackng they call out different powers or place an exception within a power to stack with itself. Can you find any example where GW do something similar elsewhere? Any at all?

Ok, let's say that when they wrote the different powers are cumulative rule they fully intended every single power to be non-cumulative with themselves... So? How does that affect the rules? It means absolutely nothing when it comes to how the rules function.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Ok, let's say that when they wrote the different powers are cumulative rule they fully intended every single power to be non-cumulative with themselves... So? How does that affect the rules? It means absolutely nothing when it comes to how the rules function.

So you don't care about the rules that GW designed? So why are you here discussing those rules?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you don't care about the rules that GW designed?

When have I ever said that?

Same old same old.