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.

Zodiark wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.

"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"

I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?

It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'

If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.

Does the banners state that you cannot have more than one anywhere in the codex? If it does not then you can.

Yes they do, I can take 10 in a unit of nobz

sirlynchmob wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.

"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"

I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?

It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'

If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.

Does the banners state that you cannot have more than one anywhere in the codex? If it does not then you can.

Yes they do, I can take 10 in a unit of nobz

So you can have multiples.

Does it say that they do not stack? If it does not then they do.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.

"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"

I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?

It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'

If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.

A) Way to bring a 4th edition rule into a 7th edition duscission.

B) WAAAgh banners are worded non-cumulatively. If a mob has 1 banner it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS, if the mob has 5 banners it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS.

C) The -1 leadership penalty from Terrify is not worded in this way, so I do not see how it is relevant to the current discussion.

Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.

I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.

I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.

"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"

I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?

It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'

If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.

A) Way to bring a 4th edition rule into a 7th edition duscission.

B) WAAAgh banners are worded non-cumulatively. If a mob has 1 banner it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS, if the mob has 5 banners it includes a banner, so they get +1 WS.

C) The -1 leadership penalty from Terrify is not worded in this way, so I do not see how it is relevant to the current discussion.

Here, why don't you answer your own question

Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.

The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.

Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.

I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.

I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.

It's a really basic concept, a permissive ruleset is just a way of saying "in this set of rules you need to be have permission from the rules in order to do something".

I don't understand how that's complete BS when it's a core concept of game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Here, why don't you answer your own question

Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.

The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.

Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.

Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.

The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.

I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.

I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.

I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.

It's a really basic concept, a permissive ruleset is just a way of saying "in this set of rules you need to be have permission from the rules in order to do something".

I don't understand how that's complete BS when it's a core concept of game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Here, why don't you answer your own question

Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.

The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.

Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.

Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.

The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.

I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.

Edited for my own sanity.

Always get dragged into pointless debates.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I have no idea where this "Permissive Rule Set " idea comes from, but it's complete BS and the worst Strawman in YMDC.

I dunno this thread kind of pushed me away from that idea , just this whole idea of a "permissive" rule set is kind of bizzaro land.

I mean illogical scenarios are the worst though.

It's a really basic concept, a permissive ruleset is just a way of saying "in this set of rules you need to be have permission from the rules in order to do something".

I don't understand how that's complete BS when it's a core concept of game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Here, why don't you answer your own question

Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.

The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.

Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.

Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.

The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.

I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.

No, I just think that overall it's harmful and it's like the "Drop the Mic" of YMDC at this point. People always circle around to it it's like Godwins Law of YMDC.

It's just a bad argument.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Here, why don't you answer your own question

Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.

The relevance is, if you think one stacks, and the other doesn't, then you're being a hypocrite and not understanding the arguments you are making.

Waagh banners are not worded non cumulatively, and if you think they are, then you should also clearly see maledictions are as well.

Because two maledictions is a combination of rules that each apply effects on the model, in the case of two Terrify powers you have a -1 penalty being applied to the model twice.

The WAAAgh Banner rule does not do this, yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers. It is vaguely worded and I believe needed FAQ'ing to confirm what the rule states. which is that a unit either includes a WAAgh Banner or it does not, it is a conditional statement that you either confirm or do not confirm.

I fully understand the arguments I am making, it seems you are the one having difficulty in this regard.

If you think 2 terrifies is a combination of rules, then 2 banners is also a combination of rules. The fact that you can't see that it is the exact same argument means you are arguing from personal opinion and not RAW. so feel free to mark all your posts HYWPI.

Because two banners is also a combination of rules that each apply effects on the unit, in the case of two banners you have a +1 bonus being applied to the unit twice.

yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers.

really? if one is a modifier, than 2 is definitely RAW multiple modifiers.

This is why the stacking side is wrong and should know they are. All the arguments they use against the banner also prohibits terrify from stacking. Any argument for terrify to stack allows the banners to stack. If you can't use one answer for both, you are not using RAW.

That's absolutely not true as not all rules apply to each and every item the same way. That's just a complete failure logically to say that.

Hollismason wrote:
No, I just think that overall it's harmful and it's like the "Drop the Mic" of YMDC at this point. People always circle around to it it's like Godwins Law of YMDC.

It's just a bad argument.

It is not a bad argument, it is literally how the rules are written.

The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.

When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:


1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.


However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.

By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:


2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.


So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?


3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.


Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.

If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.

However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.

It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.

Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.

But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.

While that is correct, it's still not a "well it doesn't say this , then you cannot do this".

The rules do not have to explicitly give examples of each and every example that happens with in the game as it would be impossible to do so.

The rules are a guideline to playing the game and players have to use intelligence and a understanding of the english language however poorly it may be written to interpret the authors intent in certain circumstances and how to apply these rules.

It's literally in the rules that the game is actually interpretive which is why we have YMDC in the first place to see what the best argument is for interpreting the language and appliance of rules.

You stating , "it's a permissive ruleset, it does not give permission, you cannot do" . Isn't actually a valid argument because of this. Multiple people have already given examples of why it stacks and why that wording is bad and why it probably is actually intended to stack.

I'm reading english and interpreting the syntax of that sentence, you are argueing about hammers and illogical analogies.


I have literally broken down the syntax of that sentence and no one can argue with me on that statement. You just can't do it so you go back to a safety blanket of " the rules are permissive", that's not a argument. Actually argue with me , give me something real not some BS that just keeps repeating over and over again.


Have a real debate , be here, be present. Stop falling back on this illusionary " Golden Rule of Permissive ruleset" that doesn't exist, because the only "Golden Rule" in 40k is that it is actually all interpretative and up to the players themselves to decide how the rules interact.

You cannot and have not presented to me a valid argument against my literal use of syntax to show that this is how the rule works and how Blessing specifically differ.

Not a single person has come forward to argue with me about this because they can't.

Hollismason wrote:
While that is correct, it's still not a "well it doesn't say this , then you cannot do this".

The rules do not have to explicitly give examples of each and every example that happens with in the game as it would be impossible to do so.

The rules are a guideline to playing the game and players have to use intelligence and a understanding of the english language however poorly it may be written to interpret the authors intent in certain circumstances and how to apply these rules.

It's literally in the rules that the game is actually interpretive which is why we have YMDC in the first place to see what the best argument is for interpreting the language and appliance of rules.

You stating , "it's a permissive ruleset, it does not give permission, you cannot do" . Isn't actually a valid argument because of this. Multiple people have already given examples of why it stacks and why that wording is bad and why it probably is actually intended to stack.

I'm reading english, you are argueing about hammers.

This was the problem in the threads over the weekend. You have people who are looking for specific instances of every possibility which is impossible to do. Then you have people arguing English, using critical thinking skills, logic and reading comprehension and others who are arguing for an absence of confirmation. Like those threads, this will spiral around until it is locked as well.

Conflicts can be resolved, Confrontation can not be resolved without a stalemate or a loss.
.

Hollismason wrote:
Conflicts can be resolved, Confrontation can not be resolved without a stalemate or a loss.
.

True enough. This will most likely end in a stalemate, though the side distribution is roughly 85% in favor of them stacking which tbh is a win, but alas, people are stubborn

Given I was a vocal antistack back in 6th. I agree the lack of specific addition to maledictions wording as with blessings casts more doubt on it being nonstacking. I would still play it nonstacking by preference but I don't feel a need to argue against sracking in 7th.

It would be nice to get an faq on the matter but I'm not fussed playing it either way.

sirlynchmob wrote:
If you think 2 terrifies is a combination of rules, then 2 banners is also a combination of rules. The fact that you can't see that it is the exact same argument means you are arguing from personal opinion and not RAW. so feel free to mark all your posts HYWPI.

Because two banners is also a combination of rules that each apply effects on the unit, in the case of two banners you have a +1 bonus being applied to the unit twice.

yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers.

really? if one is a modifier, than 2 is definitely RAW multiple modifiers.

This is why the stacking side is wrong and should know they are. All the arguments they use against the banner also prohibits terrify from stacking. Any argument for terrify to stack allows the banners to stack. If you can't use one answer for both, you are not using RAW.

Again, WAAAgh banner rules state that if the unit contains a banner it gets +1 WS. It is a conditional rule, Does the unit contain a banner?
Yes > It gets +1 WS
No > It does not get +1 WS
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of banners in the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.

Bausk: Imagine a world in which Games Workshop actually releases FAQs more frequently than once in a blue moon and engages with the community to see which issues need to be FAQ'd.

Different maledictions stack. It's in plain English and there is no interpretation to get confused over.

Terrify and horrify would drop leadership by 4, they are different maledictions.

I really don't see what the argument is.

I asked a few GW store managers and they all agreed.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
If you think 2 terrifies is a combination of rules, then 2 banners is also a combination of rules. The fact that you can't see that it is the exact same argument means you are arguing from personal opinion and not RAW. so feel free to mark all your posts HYWPI.

Because two banners is also a combination of rules that each apply effects on the unit, in the case of two banners you have a +1 bonus being applied to the unit twice.

yes it applies a modifier but not multiple modifiers.

really? if one is a modifier, than 2 is definitely RAW multiple modifiers.

This is why the stacking side is wrong and should know they are. All the arguments they use against the banner also prohibits terrify from stacking. Any argument for terrify to stack allows the banners to stack. If you can't use one answer for both, you are not using RAW.

Again, WAAAgh banner rules state that if the unit contains a banner it gets +1 WS. It is a conditional rule, Does the unit contain a banner?
Yes > It gets +1 WS
No > It does not get +1 WS
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of banners in the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.

Whilst this power is in effect,= It is a conditional rule, is the unit under the effect of terrify?
Yes > It gets -1 LD
No > It does not get -1LD
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of terrifies on the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.

Welcome to the non stacking side.

Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

I assume you have a RaW argument for that? One that doesn't invalidate the restriction on a Psyker unit casting the same power more than once?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

I assume you have a RaW argument for that? One that doesn't invalidate the restriction on a Psyker unit casting the same power more than once?

there are psykers that can cast the same power more than once...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

I assume you have a RaW argument for that? One that doesn't invalidate the restriction on a Psyker unit casting the same power more than once?

there are psykers that can cast the same power more than once...

Who can?

My rulebook says that "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase?"

If a unit can do that, I would really like to use it.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

I assume you have a RaW argument for that? One that doesn't invalidate the restriction on a Psyker unit casting the same power more than once?

there are psykers that can cast the same power more than once...

Who can?

My rulebook says that "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase?"

If a unit can do that, I would really like to use it.

Ahriman... iirc Fateweaver can. I'm sure there's more.
Eldrad?

Oh wow, that is awesome.

None for Tyranids probably

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

There's a nice opinion. you should mark it HYWPI. Because that opinion has no rules support what so ever.

I can just as easily say the banner rule is for that specific banner as well.

If the answer for stacking banners & powers is not the same, you're doing it wrong.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

There's a nice opinion. you should mark it HYWPI. Because that opinion has no rules support what so ever.

I can just as easily say the banner rule is for that specific banner as well.

If the answer for stacking banners & powers is not the same, you're doing it wrong.

it has just as much rules support at the other side of the argument.

As for the banner, the wording is not the same so they are not comparable.

DeathReaper I think you need to read your own rather good description of a permissive ruleset. Ahriman is the only Psyker I'm aware of that can manifest the same power more than once. He has a specific exception to the rule about same power.

So we know that when they talk about whilst "this power" is in effect due to how they use same this power is the same named power not the same instance or the restriction on casting the same power more than once has no meaning.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect,= It is a conditional rule, is the unit under the effect of terrify?
Yes > It gets -1 LD
No > It does not get -1LD
Multiple modifiers never comes into play because the rule grants a single modifier regardless of the number of terrifies on the unit.
If you can find a psychic power that has the same conditional wording I will agree that it is non-stacking with itself.

Welcome to the non stacking side.

So your entire argument hinges on the interpretation that "the power" refers to Terrify in and of itself rather than the power manifested on the unit?
It seems we've reached the crux of it, if your interpretation of "the power" is the same as sirlynchmob's Terrify doesn't stack for you, if your interpretation is that "the power" is that single manifestation you have just resolved it does stack for you.
My interpretation is the second option, therefore Terrify stacks for me.
/thread over

 DeathReaper wrote:
Whilst this power is in effect is referring to that casting of the power.

Welcome to the stacking side.

Obviously it does not. Whilst Terrify is "in effect" the target has -1 LD. Maledictions are "in effect" from the time the power lands until the start of the Psychic Phase of the caster. Remove the 'whilst" part and the stacking side would be correct. However any power with that wording cannot stack with itself.