|
|
Post by guns on Sept 6, 2012 6:05:44 GMT
"Bonuses and penalties from different Maledictions are always cumulative" So, default to Ye Old Permissive Ruleset argument -- the rules give you permission to stack different maledictions, but do not give you permission to stack the same power with itself. Ergo, you cannot do so. This one's not even in doubt. Actually form a permissive ruleset argument, enfeeble tells you exactly what to do when a unit is hit by the power. Ergo, you can unless clarified otherwise. If I pass a psychic test, the rules tell me what enfeeble does do. -1 toughness. The rules do not create an exception in here anywhere I can find, other than their clarifying statement (which prevents the need of an FAQ to tell people, yes, you can doom and enfeeble a unit at the same time) which ONLY has the flaw of not saying... what exactly? that "different" powers are literally powers without the same profile. If it is coming from a different psychic test it is a different psychic power. Regardless of the profile. Similarly a Razorback firing a lazcannon at my trygon, and then immediately following this a space marine unit that has a guy with a lascannon in it fires onto my trygon... that is a different shot, regardless of if they are both called lascannons. I am honestly shocked they have to define what "different" means to end debates on things. This is really getting silly. This game is getting a bit too "if they dont spoon feed me it, doesnt exist" There are several massive problems I see with this interpretation. Firstly, you're ascribing absurd and unrealistic behaviour to the rules designers. You're seemingly saying that they intended separate instances of a single power to stack (based on your reading of the permissions given in the rulebook) and yet decided to put in specific phraseology to allow completely different powers to stack (despite that already being allowed under your interpretation of the permissive ruleset). That doesn't wash. If they got to the point of considering whether unique powers stack, and putting in a specific rule about it, they likely would have thought about separate instances of a single power stacking. Under my interpretation, both of those outcomes are covered. Different powers can stack, multiple instances cannot. Under your interpretation, they were so worried about people being unsure about unique powers stacking that they put in specific language to address it, but shrugged off a more detailed explanation of multiple instances. Secondly, your interpretation of the word "different" in that rule is at odds with all other uses of the words "same" and "different" governing psychic powers. For example, the section before the disciplines lists clearly demonstrates that a "psychic power" is the ability in toto, and not each separate manifestation. Under your interpretation, an Eldar Farseer can buy Doom twice, and cast it twice in one turn with Spirit Stones. The only restriction put on him is that he "cannot use the same psychic power twice in the same turn" and according to you he would not be doing that; he'd be using two different powers that happen to have the same name and same effect.  Finally, there's been a long-standing tradition in GW games of very conservative application of cumulative modifiers and effects. In most cases where the cumulative effects are not spelled out explicitly, the designers err on the side of disallowing it (even if it *directly* contradicts the rules as written... see the 6th edition FAQ ruling on multiple Hive Commanders if you don't believe me). |
|
syu
Gaunt
Posts: 30
|
Post by syu on Sept 7, 2012 2:28:44 GMT
hopefully the faq will calrify this. for now I make it a point to ask the organizers in a tourney if they stack or not. If allowed then great, if not, still good since paladins down to S3 T3 are easier to kill...
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 7, 2012 4:00:37 GMT
guns: First paragraph: that is completely untrue. Games workshop has plenty of history of adding unnececery clarification. I have plenty of examples if you would like me to name a few (like wall of death saying you don't move in a failed charge, pretty explicitly stated on page 22 that you don't move. Clarified for convenience) Second paragraph: as an echo, I feel a compulsive need to repeat myself. There is a place that says exactly what malidictions do, and the powers themselves tell you what they can do. This is a argument between 1 word which is in fact "different". I'll cover that more in my last response... Third paragraph: Well, issue with the doom example: it doesn't HAE any impact on the game of it does or does not. Additionally, farseers *cant*, to my knowledge, have doom twice. It can buy doom, the one power... But not doom have a second psychic power, doom. It isn't possible. What am I saying? Let's pretend doom is a malidiction. Technically it isn't but it funtions like one. If 2 farseers are in range of a unit, my argument is that both of the farseers can cast doom on the same unit without any controversy of rules. The only reason this has never been an issue is because dooms ability is... Well unstackable. Forth paragraph: yes, I know exactly how games workshop works with their stupid rules on what they think is or is not okay. No one played, in the beginning, that hive tyrant buffs didn't stack. And just like the tyrants needing an FAQ (which technically should be an amendment) to convince me it doesn't stack, it will take an FAQ for me to be convinced of this point as well. Because the rules allow it and don't create exception. Past tendencies don't define anything, escoecially when past tendencies aren't exactly what your arguing.
|
|
|
|
Post by guns on Sept 7, 2012 7:26:13 GMT
You can't just wrap everything up in the generalized idea of "unnecessary clarifications". I am talking about the specific clarification you are claiming, and how it doesn't make sense from a cognitive standpoint. In your view, they somehow decided to clarify the interaction of different powers, while not clarifying multiple instances of the same power. That doesn't make sense, because they clarified the combination that didn't need it, and failed to clarify (note: only in your view -- in my view they did clarify this) the combination that did... by virtue of your argument, in order for them to do it this way they must have consciously thought about the interaction of multiple castings, and if they did think about that it makes no sense that they would choose to clarify the more obvious of two quandaries. You're saying they examined the issue closely enough to realize that people would be confused by multiple different powers, yet they left the issue of identical powers unclear (despite the only argument for it being the same one that would have sufficed for different powers in the first place).
RE: Doom, the Farseer's rules simply say "May pick two powers from the following list". If your version of same and different applies, then the Farseer could take two copies of Doom. They're both on the list, and they'd be considered different powers.
Precedence does[/i] matter for people who would rather attempt to play the game "correctly" according to perceived and probable rules as intended, instead of slavishly adhering to the rules as written. I respect people who play hard RaW and spend their time breaking it down. They're valuable to the community. But they frequently set themselves up for sour grapes and embarrassment, when it turns out that their intricate arguments are washed away by a single stroke of the FAQ that every reasonable person knew was coming. We Tyranids were on the other end of this when the codex came out and people (correctly) claimed that by hard RaW we couldn't use multiple biomorphs in a combat, and the Mawloc couldn't intentionally deep strike onto an enemy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lanesend on Sept 7, 2012 7:48:09 GMT
@ Guns
To be honest, I think it is "intended" to be able to stack, but I could be wrong.
Do you think I'm setting myself up for sour grapes and embarrassement? And what about my intricate arguments?
If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are WAAC players. Even if the rule seems clear-cut to you, in this case it obviously isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by coredump on Sept 7, 2012 12:41:08 GMT
RE: Doom, the Farseer's rules simply say "May pick two powers from the following list". If your version of same and different applies, then the Farseer could take two copies of Doom. They're both on the list, and they'd be considered different powers. This does not follow from what he has said. Enfeeble was being treated as 'different' only when coming from a different model. That is not the same as a Farseer being able to pick Doom twice. But see, that is the problem. RAW is based on objective statements, your determination of who/what is 'reasonable' is pretty subjective. If a FAQ comes out the way you want, then those silly 'unreasonable RAW' players were wrong. If it comes out against you, then GW was 'surprisingly unreasonable'. Convenient. I disagree, I argue RAW all the time, and RAW definitely allowed the Mawloc to intentionally DS onto an enemy, and there was plenty of RAW support for using multiple Nid weapons simultaneously. |
|
|
|
Post by guns on Sept 7, 2012 18:44:32 GMT
But see, that is the problem. RAW is based on objective statements, your determination of who/what is 'reasonable' is pretty subjective. If a FAQ comes out the way you want, then those silly 'unreasonable RAW' players were wrong. If it comes out against you, then GW was 'surprisingly unreasonable'. Convenient. It's a percentage game. Consideration of the RaI will vindicate your conclusions more often than considering only the RaW. I don't seek to be right ALL the time, just as often as is reasonable, and to draw conclusions that will not cause my army or strategy to be flipped on its head after a FAQ arrives. Today vindicates this idea completely: - I chose not to take multiple Grounding tests while retaining Hard to Hit in my games, even thought the RaW said I should. - I chose not to put a quadgun on my home-made Tyranid defense lines, even though it would have been useful and I had an extra Acid Spray from the T-fex kit that would have made an awesome-looking AA weapon. - I chose not to mess with Broodlord shooting powers and Snap Fire, even though there were some RaW arguments *cough* claiming it could be done. - I chose to simplify Pile Ins and striking by considering them a single value, even though the RaW left that up for debate. - I chose not to apply special effects to HoW hits, even though the RaW allowed for that possibility. Anyway, this is getting away from the thread topic and turning into a silly RaW vs RaI conversation. Suffice it to say I was disappointed that today's FAQs didn't settle the Enfeeble stacking quandary. |
|
|
|
Post by l0rdf1end on Sept 7, 2012 20:05:12 GMT
Theres nothing to settle, its very simple and informs us directly that enfeeble doesnt stack. Different Maeledictions do however.
That is RAW and I think its fair to say RAI also.
Otheriwse potentially a little OP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2012 21:15:39 GMT
I go with no. The idea of any of my MCs getting double enfeebled followed by a single krak for ID is not satisfactory. Don't forget that other people can use enfeeble as well and you will[/i] end up with t4 Tervigons and Tyrants if you follow that road.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkGuard on Sept 7, 2012 22:11:40 GMT
Theres nothing to settle, its very simple and informs us directly that enfeeble doesnt stack. Different Maeledictions do however. That is RAW and I think its fair to say RAI also. Otheriwse potentially a little OP. Once again, nowhere in the rules does it say that the same maledictions do not stack. Therefore there is a rules issue. It's quite simple. |
|
syu
Gaunt
Posts: 30
|
Post by syu on Sept 7, 2012 22:36:16 GMT
The new FAQ is out and sadly no mention on stacking maledictions... Geez
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 8, 2012 5:31:52 GMT
I go with no. The idea of any of my MCs getting double enfeebled followed by a single krak for ID is not satisfactory. Don't forget that other people can use enfeeble as well and you will[/i] end up with t4 Tervigons and Tyrants if you follow that road.[/quote] The list of armies that can take more than one psyker effectively and also take biomancy... are very limited. Theres nothing to settle, its very simple and informs us directly that enfeeble doesnt stack. Different Maeledictions do however. That is RAW and I think its fair to say RAI also. Otheriwse potentially a little OP. The Weirdboy ork warboss being able to use his Psychic shooting attack even though he is BS0 is RAI Mawloc being able to be placed on top of an enemy unit is RAI there is no "RAI" to go by here, because we can say "no they didnt want multiple enfeebles to stack" but we can also say that they just didnt cover it. and that is very possible. RAI is not a valid argument here. RAW is sloppy here. Just like grounded tests on FMC, where they didnt clearly define what grounded meant. |
|
|
|
Post by drummerboy on Sept 10, 2012 19:02:12 GMT
The problem is that they dont have a large enough Beta Test group on the rule books. Does GW even beta test? I think they just do thought experiments like Einstein and hope it all works out in the end. Seriously though, have they ever publicly revealed how they test rule sets before releasing them? |
|
|
|
Post by Davor on Sept 10, 2012 22:26:07 GMT
Seriously though, have they ever publicly revealed how they test rule sets before releasing them? This is what I was told when I was playing them. This was about 5 years ago. This person was a beta tester for GW, for the Chaos codex. When they emaild GW their findings, they were basically told, they were wrong, and if they kept it up, it was considered complaining and they would be fired. Well we all know how the 4th edition Chaos Space Marine codex turned out. So basically GW has their head so far up their arse, they don't care what anyone thinks, since they can do no wrong. Talk about the ultmaite Geek/Nerd/Loser thinking they are so great and better than anyone else. This is their version of being the jock in sports, that they are so great and can do no wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on Sept 11, 2012 2:28:36 GMT
Honestly I dont think when testing this particular rule they had any issues. I think the people who playtested the rules are the same people who wrote them and had a pretty "set in mind" idea of how the game was played and how the rules were defined.
Look at grounded. they said "counts as being grounded" without ever defining what that means.
They added the rule where if you lose LoS during wound allocation, the pool is emptied, and then go onto say barrage can fire out of LoS without providing exception to this particular rule.
They put in a rule for BS0 never being able to shoot any weapon under any circumstance... with models in the game (which, yes, are scarcely used) that have shooting weapons and powers that ignore their BS by being able to hit automatically (Flamers and beams).
And, this, is just another example of where they have assumed abilities of peoples perceptions of the rules as written o be just as keen as their own, from the point of view of the writer of the rulebook. "different" powers can be defined in SO many different ways that it causes conflict.
|
|
"
