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.

Flingit wrote:Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Does this work for other things as well?
For instance, do we need specific to shoot Bolters?
Do we need specific permission to move models with our elbows?

Or are you inventing this specific permission requirement because you don't like that general permissions allow Terrify to stack with itself?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Flingit wrote:Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Or are you inventing this specific permission requirement because you don't like that general permissions allow Terrify to stack with itself?

This right here.

Every thread I have seen in the last couple of days that has been in a hated discussion is one side with rules backing their position against another with players who "think" it shouldn't be a certain way specifically because the wording is not exact enough for them or it would be "game breaking" a concept I find funny as this is how it reads in the rules, how it is taught at shops, how it i played by hardcore veterans.

All these boil down to one side not wanting to admit that the rules do not support their positions, but their feelings on how it should be should be taken into account. It is HYWPI and not RAW

I bet I know which thread you are think of, Zodiark. :p

Because this curiously reminded me of it. The they-did-it -for-one-and-not-the-other-so-it-must-be-a-mistake-which-will-get-faq-soon argument.

 milkboy wrote:
I bet I know which thread you are think of, Zodiark. :p

Because this curiously reminded me of it. The they-did-it -for-one-and-not-the-other-so-it-must-be-a-mistake-which-will-get-faq-soon argument.

Oh I don't think it will be FAQ'd. I think its RAW, I believe it was intended to be this way and as there is nothing to contradict this within the rules, we apply it as RAW. People can house rule it all they want but it won't change RAW

Zodiark,
Allow me to please explain what you are currently seeing, as it is the result of old scars on this Forum that where old when I was young. There has been a long, very long and very annoying, problem within the rules concerning Psychic Powers that never been addressed by Game Workshop in an acceptable Format. That is the simple question of 'do Psychic Powers Stack by default?' which has it's own unique followers that always boil down to either Yay or Nay, and neither side has shifted their stance since that very first day. This problem has been made far more problematic by Tournaments, Game Workshop sponsored ones at that, ruling in favor of either group at what seems to be a whim. Then we get a completely new Edition and even though this clearly has to be known to the Authors they once more give us Rules which suggest heavily but do not outright state the answer!

Personally I would not allow them to Stack as there is a great deal of evidence as to intent, but I don't use Psykers or fight that many of them in my tiny group so it is moot for me:
- Why mention 'Different Maledictions Stack?'
- Why would specific Powers contain Clauses to state they stack with themselves?
- Do we really need a definition for what 'Same' means?

P.S:
The question of ' is something is Game Breaking' should be irrelevant as this Forum is here to debate the Rules, an opponent always has the Rule Supported right to call 'cheese' and walk away.
Curiously, one of the things I found to be very Game breaking was written into the Rules now... so go figure.

JinxDragon wrote:
Zodiark,
Allow me to please explain what you are currently seeing, as it is the result of old scars on this Forum that where old when I was young. There has been a long, very long and very annoying, problem within the rules concerning Psychic Powers that never been addressed by Game Workshop in an acceptable Format. That is the simple question of 'do Psychic Powers Stack by default?' which has it's own unique followers that always boil down to either Yay or Nay, and neither side has shifted their stance since that very first day. This problem has been made far more problematic by Tournaments, Game Workshop sponsored ones at that, ruling in favor of either group at what seems to be a whim. Then we get a completely new Edition and even though this clearly has to be known to the Authors they once more give us Rules which suggest heavily but do not outright state the answer!

Personally I would not allow them to Stack as there is a great deal of evidence as to intent, but I don't use Psykers or fight that many of them in my tiny group so it is moot for me:
- Why mention 'Different Maledictions Stack?'
- Why would specific Powers contain Clauses to state they stack with themselves?
- Do we really need a definition for what 'Same' means?

P.S:
The question of ' is something is Game Breaking' should be irrelevant as this Forum is here to debate the Rules, an opponent always has the Rule Supported right to call 'cheese' and walk away.
Curiously, one of the things I found to be very Game breaking was written into the Rules now... so go figure.

Yeah I noticed a lot of entrenchment on both sides.

The way I see it, I read the RAW and unless the RAW states that they do not stack, then they can. If it states that they cannot, then they cannot. Defining same, defining different is interesting because I highly doubt that many posters in these forums are trained to actually interpret the English language in a way someone who went to school to study English and someone who teaches it would. When you take this away, all you have are guys picking and choosing from a web dictionary, but not really understanding what is being said.

I mentioned game breaking as a mod refuses to consider a valid argument because he "feels" it would "break the game" and I agree, feelings have no place in a discussion, neither do opinions for the most part but YMDC is really about how people interpret things otherwise it would be called RAW and people can simply get examples and yes and no without opinions or argument.

JinxDragon wrote:
Zodiark,
Allow me to please explain what you are currently seeing, as it is the result of old scars on this Forum that where old when I was young. There has been a long, very long and very annoying, problem within the rules concerning Psychic Powers that never been addressed by Game Workshop in an acceptable Format. That is the simple question of 'do Psychic Powers Stack by default?' which has it's own unique followers that always boil down to either Yay or Nay, and neither side has shifted their stance since that very first day.

I, for one, have shifted my stance several times during the course of this debate and as the editions have changed. I am perfectly willing and able to be convinced that I'm wrong by a logical argument based on the rules, which is why I am on the pro-stacking side for multiple uses of the same Malediction in 7th edition.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I, for one, have shifted my stance several times during the course of this debate and as the editions have changed.
I am perfectly willing and able to be convinced that I'm wrong by a logical argument based on the rules, which is why I am on the pro-stacking side for multiple uses of the same Malediction in 7th edition.

I can see players deciding beforehand on it if it is too clear for one or both players, but having a flat out no I do not agree with as it doesn't state no.

Zodiark wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:

Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.

Have a nice day!

That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:

Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.

Have a nice day!

That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

Really don't want to argue but I'll answer your post and be done with it.

Define permissive, you have your answer. Good day.

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.

In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol

In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Hollismason wrote:
Okay finally got home and got the exact wording which is completely different than blessings

Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).

Now for Comparison what Blessing say which is completely different wording

The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative.

So now I don't know what the hell.

Ugh I feel like writing a letter to GW.

These two rules quotes solve the debate. For Blessings, the benefite of any one particular blessing, that's one particular power meaning TYPE of power can only be gained once per turn....but benefites from DIFFERENT blessings are cumulative. DIFFERENT means DIFFERENT. The power is NOT different just because it comes from a different psyker. Two dudes have Enfeeble, it's the same damn power.

Bonuses and penalties from DIFFERENT Maledictions are always cumulative. There's the answer right freakin' there. MOVE ON.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:

Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.

Have a nice day!

That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

That is not how a permissive rule set works either. You are allowed to cast multiple copies of the same power on one unit. There is no clause that states that the effects do not stack. Allowing them to stack is well within the parameters set by the rules.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:

Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.

Have a nice day!

That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

That is not how a permissive rule set works either. You are allowed to cast multiple copies of the same power on one unit. There is no clause that states that the effects do not stack. Allowing them to stack is well within the parameters set by the rules.

This is correct. As there is nothing responding in the negative in this situation, the positive goes into effect and they stack, until something states otherwise. People are free to go HYWPI if they want but they cannot say that this way is not RAW as there is nothing within the rules that states that they do not stack.

Then explain the presence of the word "different" in the sentence about Maledictions stacking.

If the intent was to allow all maledictions to stack, then the inclusion of the word different is functionally redundant.

Because some maledictions have effects that are cumulative with themselves and some maledictions do not. So the word different means you know you can always stack different powers while preventing "I cast Doom on your unit twice and the rulebook says it's cumulative, so you have to reroll your saves twice!"

Let's be honest, we all know there would be people arguing that if the rule did not include the word "different".

 azreal13 wrote:
Then explain the presence of the word "different" in the sentence about Maledictions stacking.

If the intent was to allow all maledictions to stack, then the inclusion of the word different is functionally redundant.

Refer to post immediately before yours, you are referring to a specific word and inferring a meaning within that context. This is an interpretation, not a statement of the rules. Notice how Blessings specifically state that they do not stack, notice how Maledictions do not have this statement on them. The answer is apparent from the start.

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.

In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol

In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative

Incorrect PrinceRaven was right (and what we are disagreeing about is does general permission to stack psychic powers exist) it does need a rule to tell you what not to do. Again you completely misunderstand what a permissive ruleset is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

No again you need permission to stack. The pro-stacking side believe there is general permission to stack because their is permission to resolve powers and there is permission for multiple modifiers to stack that. But permission to resolve is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Particularly when you look at the wording in the powers that we are told to resolve (whilst this power is in effect). RaW Terrify doesn't stack, most likely RaI Terrify does not stack. If you want to play by your own houserule that is does stack play it that way and mark your discussion on here as HYWPI. Or provide a rule that gives general permission for psychic powers to stack or a rule that allows you to ignore the "whilst this power is in effect" wording that appears in Terrify.

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.

In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol

In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative

Incorrect PrinceRaven was right (and what we are disagreeing about is does general permission to stack psychic powers exist) it does need a rule to tell you what not to do. Again you completely misunderstand what a permissive ruleset is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

No again you need permission to stack. The pro-stacking side believe there is general permission to stack because their is permission to resolve powers and there is permission for multiple modifiers to stack that. But permission to resolve is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Particularly when you look at the wording in the powers that we are told to resolve (whilst this power is in effect). RaW Terrify doesn't stack, most likely RaI Terrify does not stack. If you want to play by your own houserule that is does stack play it that way and mark your discussion on here as HYWPI. Or provide a rule that gives general permission for psychic powers to stack or a rule that allows you to ignore the "whilst this power is in effect" wording that appears in Terrify.

So you play by needing permission to do something, that is fine, you have the permission to do something until the rules state otherwise. Again, define permissive, you have your answer.

I understand a permissive ruleset, I also understand the definition of the terms individually as well hence I repeat the above line.

Unless something directly states that you cannot stack them, you have no ruling whatsoever to support a claim of them not stacking, hence, you cannot state that they do not stack. Rules as Intended, you simply cannot do because you do not know what they intended because you were not there. Rules as Interpreted is a matter of opinion which is HYWPI so I ask you to please mark it before you post.

Me, I read the rules, I follow what it says and as it does not say that I cannot do something, then I can.

Moving on, good day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!

How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.

I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.

Permissive doesn't mean what people think it means, it merely means "allowing great freedom" it does not mean "can only do what explicitly allowed to do."

So to assert that 40K is a permissive rule set in one sense is completely accurate, but to argue that you can only do what you have permission to do is not. Nowhere in the rules is it defined in this way, it is simply a convention adopted because the alternative (you can do everything unless explicitly told no) would be utterly insane.

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive doesn't mean what people think it means, it merely means "allowing great freedom" it does not mean "can only do what explicitly allowed to do."

So to assert that 40K is a permissive rule set in one sense is completely accurate, but to argue that you can only do what you have permission to do is not. Nowhere in the rules is it defined in this way, it is simply a convention adopted because the alternative (you can do everything unless explicitly told no) would be utterly insane.

Except that is how it works for literally every game ever made. Working within the rules provided in literally every game you are told specifically what you can and cannot do. This is not insane, this is logical.

Permissive definition from the dictionary means, allowing or characterized by great excessive of freedom of behavior, its second definition is allowed but not obligatory; optional. You are given leeway but not absolute leeway as you are attempting to do by claiming "permissive ruleset"

A permissive ruleset simply allows you to make allowances for any issue that comes within the rules of the game and decide how you would go about doing it which is exactly what both sides are doing this. One side is doing it logically, the other is arguing the use and definition of the word different. It's similar to Bill Clinton asking for a definition and clarification for the word "It"

Hence, logically, until told otherwise, following Rules as Written, you cannot go wrong.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is not how a permissive ruleset works. There is no rule preventing me from smashing up your models with a hammer. Or bringing my dead models back into play or just adding and new units to the table as and when I choose...

True, but if you did have a rule allowing you to smash models with a hammer you could smash them multiple times with the same hammer, unless there was another rule that denies permission to do so.

In MtG there was a card that allowed you to rip up your opponents cards lol so yeah lol

In general though, if the BRB says you can do something, you can. If it says you can't, you can't. But the rule needs to be there in the first place, whether in the affirmative or the negative

Incorrect PrinceRaven was right (and what we are disagreeing about is does general permission to stack psychic powers exist) it does need a rule to tell you what not to do. Again you completely misunderstand what a permissive ruleset is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

No again you need permission to stack. The pro-stacking side believe there is general permission to stack because their is permission to resolve powers and there is permission for multiple modifiers to stack that. But permission to resolve is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Particularly when you look at the wording in the powers that we are told to resolve (whilst this power is in effect). RaW Terrify doesn't stack, most likely RaI Terrify does not stack. If you want to play by your own houserule that is does stack play it that way and mark your discussion on here as HYWPI. Or provide a rule that gives general permission for psychic powers to stack or a rule that allows you to ignore the "whilst this power is in effect" wording that appears in Terrify.

There is no rule stating that "Unless otherwise stated, no effects as a result of maledictions may stack". No offense meant but your assertion is simply incorrect and baseless.

Zodiark wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!

How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.

I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.

My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"

My response was "I am having issues believing this"

Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.

You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.

Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?

A permissive ruleset is one in which you require permission in the rules in order to do something. This is as opposed to a restrictive ruleset in which the ruleset tells you what is restricted and everything not on the rules is permitted.

 azreal13 wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!

How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.

I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.

My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"

My response was "I am having issues believing this"

Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.

You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.

Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?

Actually you were condescending in your initial post, so I clarified. Then you insulted me so I clarified again. No comprehension issues here

Permissive Ruleset isn't a thing.

A permissive rule is a thing, but a permissive ruleset is some thing constructed, apparently by the wargaming community.

A ruleset is likely to contain both permissive and restrictive rules.

Nowhere is 40k ever defined as a permissive ruleset by any source acceptable by YMDC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

Zodiark wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!

How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.

I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.

My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"

My response was "I am having issues believing this"

Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.

You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.

Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?

Actually you were condescending in your initial post, so I clarified. Then you insulted me so I clarified again. No comprehension issues here

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive Ruleset isn't a thing.

A permissive rule is a thing, but a permissive ruleset is some thing constructed, apparently by the wargaming community.

A ruleset is likely to contain both permissive and restrictive rules.

Nowhere is 40k ever defined as a permissive ruleset by any source acceptable by YMDC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

Zodiark wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Really don't want to argue

I am having issues believing this.

Doesn't matter what you believe. Unless someone cites an exact ruling that states that they do not stack, then they do. Anything else would be a waste of time by all of us

Well, that's a massive comprehension failure, and you've been assuring us that you're really, really good at it!

How? You have made a claim for the negative in a debate, yet you have cited no ruling to back this negative claim. The BRB in fact does not state anywhere within it that Maledictions do not stack, therefore, they do. The comprehension failure is not on me at all, I have the BRB as my source just as you do and we can both see that there is no ruling that says anything about them not stacking.

I will repeat again so you can comprehend better. In the absence of a negative, you must assume a positive, to not do so violates logic and rules.

My quote from you was "I don't want to argue"

My response was "I am having issues believing this"

Meaning, you really do want to argue, as you've been ejaculating your opinion all over this forum for the last 48 hours, despite saying you were going to take a break and despite numerous post sign offs to the effect of "I'm done now, this is my last post" before wading right back in again, sometimes minutes later.

You have managed to take my one line post, which was not directly referring to the debate at hand, and infer not only the wrong meaning behind it, but in a massive way.

Like I said, comprehension failure, which you then failed to catch when it was pointed out that you'd misunderstood my meaning. Perhaps you're not as good at this reading comprehension thing as you think, and perhaps you should stop patronising people over what you believe to be their shortcomings and check the foundations of your own position?

Actually you were condescending in your initial post, so I clarified. Then you insulted me so I clarified again. No comprehension issues here