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.

40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).

The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).

The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.

Actually every game ever made is a combination of both permissive and restrictive as they all tell you what you can and cannot do.

 azreal13 wrote:
Permissive: Allowing or characterized by great or excessive freedom of behaviour

Rules: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity

I'd say that encompasses 40K pretty neatly.

My own quote from a discussion some weeks ago.

As you can see, 40K is very much a permissive ruleset.

It just doesn't mean what people think it does.

 azreal13 wrote:
.

It encompasses, but you have neither the power or authority to state that it is tbh. This is merely an opinion.

No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).

The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.

Actually every game ever made is a combination of both permissive and restrictive as they all tell you what you can and cannot do.

Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.

D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.

D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.

That would not be D, that would be A. Not Everything that is restricted is here in the ruleset.

The rules do not say that I can't cover my models with a blanked and claim that you have no Line of sight to them, but that doesn't mean I can do it...

Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted.

So you can not do anything unless the rules state that you can do something.

There are also restrictive elements in the ruleset, like an Immobilized vehicle can not move, but that is all a part of the Permissive Ruleset as a whole.

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.

We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.

Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
40k fits the definition of a permissive ruleset, that is why we call it one. Pretty much all game systems are permissive rulesets (except Calvinball).

The exact phrase "permissive ruleset" does seem to have been coined by the wargaming communitiy, but that doesn't make it any less real than any other term in the English language.

Actually every game ever made is a combination of both permissive and restrictive as they all tell you what you can and cannot do.

Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.

No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)

But we're digressing off topic...

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.

We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.

Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.

It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.

Second point is agreed

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

Cars are made by manufacturers. Remember different cars are made by different manufacturers.

We substitute in Toyotas and the sentence changes meaning:

Toyotas are made by manufacturers. Remember different Toyotas are made by different manufacturers.

This is exactly what you are doing with your substitution. The different in the Maledictions stacking rule is referring to differently named powers not different instances of the same power.

Once again look at Terrify. "Whilst this power is in effect" so if you cast it once twice or a thousand times the power is in effect thus the unit suffers a single -1 Ld takes a single morale check etc. It is a true false statement. 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.

Yes but I can argue the complete opposite of what you are saying which is why I said word substitution seems to imply evidently that Blessing in fact do not absolutely stack. However , Maledictions do. The wording is completely different, and Blessing is written very specifically to say that it Never does and Malediction is written in such a way to always.

You are given permission by the rules to stack powers by Malediction itself.

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.

D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.

That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?

azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)

But we're digressing off topic...

But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.

Zodiark wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.

We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.

Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.

It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.

Second point is agreed

you've been playing to much magic. Nothing is timestamped, or can you cite a rule for timestamping? any terrify is the same as any other terrify, they are the same in every way.

Please, I beg the card game players, no one try to bring the chain into this discussion.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.

We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.

Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.

It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.

Second point is agreed

you've been playing to much magic. Nothing is timestamped, or can you cite a rule for timestamping? any terrify is the same as any other terrify, they are the same in every way.

I was using it as an example. And according to BRB resolving any abilities and such is up to the turn player, there is a line in there I recall seeing earlier. It also allows the turn player to resolve shooting and combats in whatever order he wants as well.

They are the same spell. Multiple Psykers casting the spell, the effects would indeed stack according to the rules as there is nothing to state that they don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Permissive and restrictive rules, yes, but the overall style of the ruleset has to be either:
a) Permissive - everything that isn't permitted in the rules is restricted
b) Restrictive - Everything that isn't restricted in the rules is permitted
c) Omnipotent - The rules encompass every single possible thing that could ever happen in any and every situation.

D) Both permissive and restrictive as is the case here. Everything that is permitted and restricted is here.

That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?

azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)

But we're digressing off topic...

But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.

C wouldn't work for this. And to answer the asinine example, if there was a rule in there about beating your opponent in the head, do what it says, as it mentions nothing it does not mean you get to do it. There are specific examples in the text with Psyker power stacking and not stacking. The issue at hand is whether terrify stacks as it does not specifically say. Looking at other types of powers we notice that some explicitly state that they don't stack and others do not state. Seeing as there is no negative, you affirm the positive.

Zodiark wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
No, I just read the word "different" and, you know, assume it means different.

That's good, but different can mean a different model casting the same spell or a different spell being cast entirely, context matters in reading comprehension. Both examples were provided and discussed earlier.

We are told different models can know the same spell, thus in context any terrify cast by one model is the same as terrify cast by any other model.

Different spells in context with the rules mean different named spells.

It is the same spell cast, but the effects being applied from the timestamp of application would not be the same as each would need to take turns doing so and each effect would resolve in said order and wear off in same order.

Second point is agreed

you've been playing to much magic. Nothing is timestamped, or can you cite a rule for timestamping? any terrify is the same as any other terrify, they are the same in every way.

I was using it as an example. And according to BRB resolving any abilities and such is up to the turn player, there is a line in there I recall seeing earlier. It also allows the turn player to resolve shooting and combats in whatever order he wants as well.

They are the same spell. Multiple Psykers casting the spell, the effects would indeed stack according to the rules as there is nothing to state that they don't.

You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."

Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.

Zodiark wrote:That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?

azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)

But we're digressing off topic...

But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.

C wouldn't work for this. And to answer the asinine example, if there was a rule in there about beating your opponent in the head, do what it says, as it mentions nothing it does not mean you get to do it. There are specific examples in the text with Psyker power stacking and not stacking. The issue at hand is whether terrify stacks as it does not specifically say. Looking at other types of powers we notice that some explicitly state that they don't stack and others do not state. Seeing as there is no negative, you affirm the positive.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Zodiark wrote:That would be (C), Omnipotent, in which case where are the rules for beating my opponent over the head with a cricket bat?

azreal13 wrote:No, it can be a combination of a and b, as in 40K where we have rules which explicitly say you are not allowed to do something (eg move into impassable terrain) and rules that say you are allowed to do something (shoot at any unit) and then a list of criteria that modify the core rule (eg unless you're a flyer and can balance on top of the impassable terrain or that the unit is out of LOS)

But we're digressing off topic...

But when something is not in the rules do we either (a) assume it can't be done, (b) assume it can be done or (c) there's no such thing as something not covered by the rules, 40k covers every single conceivable possibility in this reality.

C wouldn't work for this. And to answer the asinine example, if there was a rule in there about beating your opponent in the head, do what it says, as it mentions nothing it does not mean you get to do it. There are specific examples in the text with Psyker power stacking and not stacking. The issue at hand is whether terrify stacks as it does not specifically say. Looking at other types of powers we notice that some explicitly state that they don't stack and others do not state. Seeing as there is no negative, you affirm the positive.

So what you're saying is that if there is no rule, then we don't get to do it? That is pretty much exactly the definition of a permissive ruleset, so I don't get why you're saying it isn't one.

sirlynchmob wrote:You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."

Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.

I'm still waiting for you to adequately explain how Terrify, listed as a Psychic Power in the Telepathy discipline, is in fact a Special Rule instead of a Psychic Power.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:You mean other than this rule " a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."

Terrify is a special rule, and if you want to argue that it's not a special rule, than you revoke it's permission to modify the LD at all. We are told that maledictions inflict special rules.

I'm still waiting for you to adequately explain how Terrify, listed as a Psychic Power in the Telepathy discipline, is in fact a Special Rule instead of a Psychic Power.

Pysker itself is a special rule, maledictions do one of two things, not both. Either they reduce a characteristic OR they inflict special rules. The usage of "while this power is in effect" makes it a special rule. As a special rule it has permission to be a modifier. As it's only one power that penalizes abilities it is a special rule.

RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.

sirlynchmob wrote:
RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.

This is 100% incorrect.

Psychic powers can modify characteristics, Hammerhand does...

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.

This is 100% incorrect.

Psychic powers can modify characteristics, Hammerhand does...

Because hammerhand is also a special rule and states whilst the power is in effect.

so I'm still 100% correct and you must realize this as you offered no rules to the contrary.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.

This is 100% incorrect.

Psychic powers can modify characteristics, Hammerhand does...

Because hammerhand is also a special rule and states whilst the power is in effect.

so I'm still 100% correct and you must realize this as you offered no rules to the contrary.

To quote the relevant rules see page 8 without being a special rule (or wargear) you can't stack ANY psychic powers (even different ones) as the modifier rules now require you to be a Special Rule or piece of Wargear to work.

Except the part where they literally say , this is cumulative which gives it permission.

Hollismason wrote:
Except the part where they literally say , this is cumulative which gives it permission.

Cool where is that? If you'd quoted that at the start or at some point in this thread the debate would be over. So quote please.

I literally already quoted it previously.

Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).


are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).


Both of those are literally copy/pasted from the rules stating that yes in fact psychic powers can modify characteristics and even gives you the range of which you can do that in.

Well they took time to explain further in blessings, yet blessings have the same wording as different stack. I'm in the club that no you cannot stack the same malefic over and over and over.

However different ones do stack.

Hollismason wrote:
I literally already quoted it previously.

Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).


are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).


Both of those are literally copy/pasted from the rules stating that yes in fact psychic powers can modify characteristics and even gives you the range of which you can do that in.

What were you thinking when you made this post? Do you genuinely believe this added to the debate? Did you genuinely believe I was dumb enough to not know what these rules actually say?

Now you claim Maledictions have permission to be cumulative with themselves please post the rule that states this.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
RAW psychic powers don't modify characteristics. Only wargear and special rules do. so terrify either is a -0 LD or a -1 LD.

This is 100% incorrect.

Psychic powers can modify characteristics, Hammerhand does...

Because hammerhand is also a special rule and states whilst the power is in effect.

so I'm still 100% correct and you must realize this as you offered no rules to the contrary.

Hammerhand is not a special rule, it is a Psychic power. (Psychic powers section, Daemonology-Sanctic sub-section).

Unless you have a rule stating that Hammerhand is a special rule, got a Page/Graph for that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Except the part where they literally say , this is cumulative which gives it permission.

Cool where is that? If you'd quoted that at the start or at some point in this thread the debate would be over. So quote please.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." (Models and units section, Multiple modifiers sub-section).

Nothing about special rules, just rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Now you claim Maledictions have permission to be cumulative with themselves please post the rule that states this.

"Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not negate it with a successful Deny the Witch test, the power has been successfully manifested. Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." (The Psychic Phase section, Manifesting Psychic Powers sub-section, Resolve Psychic Power heading)

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...