|
Post by taniquetil on Aug 1, 2013 16:05:13 GMT
That still doesn't explain the rule. what you said seems to go without saying at all. There is no purpose for the rule given your explanation. The way it is phrased to me strongly implies that it should not stack with itself without an explicit exception. I will agree that RAW it does, but only just barely, RAI though clearly implies it does not. As for OM, The reroll 6's would of course only apply once. The haywire is not an ongoing effect and so you should be able to get that multiple times, but that is not stacking, that is just an instant effect. Once you have dealt with the haywire roll, that effect is over. Not that I would likely ever try to throw multiple OMs at something. There is an argument to be made there though that because you cannot stack the primary effect, you cannot use the power again at all, though I think that is probably reading too far into it. Really? How can you contradict yourself so readily? 'RAW written say yes it stacks' RAW being the facts), then RAI means it doesnt? Intended? You'd need to be psychic to know this unless RAI to you means the way you think the game should be played based on your own interpretation?I clarified the fill function of microsoft paint god dammit , I will never admit the flaws of that beautiful analogy Also, I never said that that modeifiers couldn't stack, I just said that enfeebling the enfeebled as any further effect. Think of it this way - without an FAQ how do we know how to distinguish whether or not Enfeeble modifies the models's profile line or it's modified stats? Personally, I just see one suffering -1 to their steangth and toughness while you're under the effect of enfeeble: if two psykers have cast enfeeble on you, you are under the effect of enfeeble; if 3 psykers have cast enfeeble on you than you are under the effect of enfeeble; if 10 psykers have cast enfeeble on you, you are under the effect of enfeeble. Those under the effect of enfeeble suffer -1S and -1T. BRB states that psychic powers stack. Nearly all the Major Tournaments allow stacking, and whilst i agree it it can be seen as an ever so slightly grey area because of the poor wording there are several other factors in separate parts of the book which readily and openly tell you that psychic powers stack.
Just to re-iterate...reading the BRB states clearly that Psychic powers stack, it also clearly states that the spell cannot take the stat below STR 1 and T1. Whilst i see what causes the argument to arise i believe it is more poor wording rather than intentionally opening this up to doubt, if they had wanted it to not stack it would have been very clear, for example WHFB nets cause a -1 modifier and clearly state that 'no matter how many nets are thrown the modifier is only ever -1'.
There are not very many spells which when stacked would give any benefit at all as they would cause rules contradictions to other parts of the book, eg Objuration mech.... having to re-roll 6's twice from 2 OM's would contradict the rule to only ever being able to re-roll once under any circumstances (bar cocked dice of course). As a result of this I don't think it is a difficult leap of logic to therefore understand that when the BRB states that Psychic spells stack that they are encompassing all psychic spells with a definite focus on ones which can affect stat lines.
I should imagine that the fact that nearly all major Tournaments are allowing it to stack should show something. For me and my games club its never been an issue that has been discussed after we all agreed upon reading the rulebook that allowing stacking makes perfect sense and it has never caused any game breaking balance issues as a result.Also...read this one with a more relaxed, less absolute, view as it is just an opinion. But honestly i can see the fumbling wording being down to the fact that GW do not want to give free tactical advice therefore chose to use the word 'different' instead of 'separate' or some such tomfoolery. Its pretty clear to see at various points through the BRB that some shmuck has had to sit there and use the Thesaurus function a fair few times and as a result has upset the internet by using slightly trivial word choices. Good Day
|
|
|
Post by Anggul on Aug 1, 2013 16:11:41 GMT
I can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread.
It stacks with other negative modifiers such as the Nurgle power and Rad Grenades. It doesn't stack with itself, a squad hexed multiple times with Enfeeble is still just hexed with Enfeeble, you can't cast it three times for -3. Once is your lot.
|
|
|
Post by taniquetil on Aug 1, 2013 16:17:56 GMT
I can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread. It stacks with other negative modifiers such as the Nurgle power and Rad Grenades. It doesn't stack with itself, a squad hexed multiple times with Enfeeble is still just hexed with Enfeeble, you can't cast it three times for -3. Once is your lot. Says who? Rulebook says otherwise. Your interpretation is your own idea of how the rules should be, when reading the brb fully and clearly on this subject enfeeble stacking should be allowed, and the vast majority of the tournament scene agrees with this. When i say the tournament scene i reference those who play this game a damn sight more than most and take knowing the rules and understanding them very seriously.
|
|
|
Post by infornography on Aug 1, 2013 16:34:23 GMT
That was unnecessarily condescending...
I don't play the "tournament scene" for several reasons. Not the least of which being every person I have played who does play the "tournament scene" is no fun to play against. I don't mean that I don't like them for playing a good game with a tight list. My best opponents run tighter lists than some of those individuals. I mean they are sore losers, poor winners, and all around no fun to play with. I play to enjoy myself but I play with a group that play to win and have fun doing it. We run tight lists with vicious strategies but we do it with a smile and a nod.
Perhaps that is the key difference then. I make concessions where there are ambiguities. I try not to exploit the rules to win in ways that are not more or less universally seen as correct amongst my opponents. This is one of the instances where there is an apparent conflict and I happily restrict myself to the RAI interpretation. You are welcome to stick to your interpretation, but please understand when I say as a result, I have little to no interest in playing against you. It is not meant as an insult, but merely a statement that you play in a fashion that I have no interest in following suit on.
|
|
|
Post by Anggul on Aug 1, 2013 21:54:43 GMT
If it meant 'multiple of the same power' it would say 'multiple of the same power'. It doesn't, it says: 'Different Maledictions'. Not 'multiple'. 'Different'. Multiple Enfeebles are multiples of the same Malediction, they are not 'different'. You would have to be a fool to think that's what it meant, they would have just said 'multiple of the same'. I know GW aren't clear with a lot of things, but it's a long shot to say that 'different maledictions' could mean 'different castings of the same malediction'. It doesn't say that, that isn't what it means.
The rule is in place to cover 'different maledictions' which modify the same stats such as Enfeeble, the Nurgle power which can lower Strength and/or Toughness, and the Eldar Rune of Battle which can lower Strength.
|
|
|
Post by atrocity on Aug 2, 2013 0:45:01 GMT
How can you be "under the effect" of something more than once? Either you are under the effect or you're not.
If you are, then you are affected by -1S and -1T and treat all terrain as difficult.
If you're not, then you're not.
If you cast it twice on a unit it is now still only "under the effect".
There is nothing to support that it stacks with itself.
Just like with the CSM powers it needs the sentence "note that the effects of more than one enfeeble are cumulative" to be able to stack.
|
|
|
Post by t⊗theark on Aug 2, 2013 0:49:44 GMT
BRB states that psychic powers stack. Nearly all the Major Tournaments allow stacking, and whilst i agree it it can be seen as an ever so slightly grey area because of the poor wording there are several other factors in separate parts of the book which readily and openly tell you that psychic powers stack. Wow, where to start? Just to re-iterate...reading the BRB states clearly that Psychic powers stack, it also clearly states that the spell cannot take the stat below STR 1 and T1. Whilst i see what causes the argument to arise i believe it is more poor wording rather than intentionally opening this up to doubt, if they had wanted it to not stack it would have been very clear, for example WHFB nets cause a -1 modifier and clearly state that 'no matter how many nets are thrown the modifier is only ever -1'. Shall we quote the BRB verbatim? I think it will be really fun, let's do it! "Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always accumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take charactaristics above 10 or below one"~Last sentence of page 68Hmmm, different maledictions. Are enfeeble and enfeeble different maledictions? There are not very many spells which when stacked would give any benefit at all as they would cause rules contradictions to other parts of the book, eg Objuration mech.... having to re-roll 6's twice from 2 OM's would contradict the rule to only ever being able to re-roll once under any circumstances (bar cocked dice of course). As a result of this I don't think it is a difficult leap of logic to therefore understand that when the BRB states that Psychic spells stack that they are encompassing all psychic spells with a definite focus on ones which can affect stat lines. 'Why else would they do this?' is not an argument simply due to the fact that the Rule book powers are not the only powers in the game. I mean the stacking potential in the Eldar codex due to the sheer amount of powers they have access to. Not to mention, there are rules that stress that the multiples of the same affects do accumulate, for example, "The effects of multiple 'Gifts of Contagian' are cumulative" ~ Page 71 of Codex: Chaos Space Marines.Why would they specify that if multiples of the same malediction were by default cumulative? See how this isn't an argument? I should imagine that the fact that nearly all major Tournaments are allowing it to stack should show something. For me and my games club its never been an issue that has been discussed after we all agreed upon reading the rulebook that allowing stacking makes perfect sense and it has never caused any game breaking balance issues as a result. Argument from authority FTW! Alas, there are tournaments where they weren't accumulative, I've been to them. Also, my local group agreed without much debate that they weren't after reading the rule book, they thought that was deduced from the language, everyone I know agrees with enfeeble not stacking. You're not very convincing. Also...read this one with a more relaxed, less absolute, view as it is just an opinion. But honestly i can see the fumbling wording being down to the fact that GW do not want to give free tactical advice therefore chose to use the word 'different' instead of 'separate' or some such tomfoolery. Its pretty clear to see at various points through the BRB that some shmuck has had to sit there and use the Thesaurus function a fair few times and as a result has upset the internet by using slightly trivial word choices. Mate, no offence, but you held authority like a paper bag holds water - I have no idea why you started with the provoking, condescending tone to begin with, it was rather nice banter before then. Sure, the working can be ambiguous language can be a problem, but that doesn't make your assertion of "It's obviously x, you're playing with language" any less obnoxious. AND GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR! *slams door*
|
|
|
Post by arnestig on Aug 3, 2013 6:54:53 GMT
Does endurance stack?
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Aug 3, 2013 8:30:58 GMT
No, because you can't stack special rules. I fail to see how that is relevant though, as decreasing Strength and Toughness is not a special rule.
|
|
|
Post by Jabberwocky on Aug 3, 2013 9:22:09 GMT
No, because you can't stack special rules. I fail to see how that is relevant though, as decreasing Strength and Toughness is not a special rule. Enfeeble also makes you move as if in difficult terrain, which obviously doesn't stack either, but people normally happily take the best parts of various rules such as PE on a twin linked gun rerolling all hits but only 1s to wound, so with stacked enfeebles presumably they'd go with -X stat and all terrain as difficult.
|
|
|
Post by atrocity on Aug 3, 2013 10:45:44 GMT
My whole country is agreed: It does not stack.
Either you are under the effect or you're not.
If you are, then you are affected by -1S and -1T and treat all terrain as difficult.
If you're not, then you're not.
If you cast it twice on a unit it is now still only "under the effect" and thus it would be ridiculous to cast it twice on a unit.
There is nothing to support that it stacks with itself.
|
|
|
Post by taniquetil on Aug 4, 2013 0:20:23 GMT
So i may have been ratty, sorry, thats not cricket, we're all friends here right..one united hive mind and all that right? Shall we quote the BRB verbatim? I think it will be really fun, let's do it! "Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always accumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take charactaristics above 10 or below one"~Last sentence of page 68Hmmm, different maledictions. Are enfeeble and enfeeble different maledictions? "Unless otherwise stated the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"- top of page 68, resolve psychic power sectionCaster A and Caster B are different yes? therefore if they cast enfeeble twice they cast 2 'different' instances. Therefore fulfilling each word of the sentence. we have the requirements for 'multiple' and 'different' both satisfied. Taken from The NOVA Open FAQ 2012 (quoted; page 5): Psychic Powers and Stacking – If two Psykers cast the same power (i.e., Enfeeble), they are considered two different powers. Therefore, where the rules permit different psychic powers to stack, different castings of psychic powers with the same name do apply. look at it comparitively to getting tranquillised. Get injected with one dose of tranq and you'll feel the effects of it. Get injected with it for a second time in quick succession and it will have an increased effect. Your body will receive the effect of the tranq faster and you will be under for longer with more severe and longlasting effects. I also dont play the tournament scene, i just see it as something to look to when debating rules as the tournament players and organise devote far more time to it than you or i and therefore are a better authority on the subject. Same logic as with most walks of life, sport,science,teaching,gaming you look to those at the highest level for guidance. Its documented that the Majority of large tournaments have been allowing enfeeble to stack, of course there is still not unanimity but the majority swings in favour of it stacking.
|
|
|
Post by t⊗theark on Aug 4, 2013 1:54:58 GMT
No Wukkas taniquetil It is otherwise stated. It doesn't talk about different casters, it talks about the malediction, it even state "different maledictions" right there. Also, it has an effect, the effect lowers toughness and strength. An effect of the fill function in microosoft paint is to make something a colour, if you fill it twice it is still that colour, that is the effect of the fill function in microsoft paint. It doesn't get more of that colour, it is that colour and you made it that colour twice. The effect is to enfeeble and you just put it under the effect twice. "Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..." Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source. This is why I think that Codex: Chaos Space Marines explicitly states that the same power is cumulative. Also, I called out this argument from authority because that only works with a clear consensus and this here does not, which is why I can call on tournaments that have not allowed enfeeble to stack. I'm even dubious about your claim that most tournaments allow it to stack, may I ask within what context that this is the case? I ask because I have been in the tournament scene and the context I'm in, the Australian context, I have experienced not allowing it to stack. As I've looked around most European countries are much of the same consensus. This appears to be the case with atrocity as well. In fact the only places where I've seen it much the other way around from my expirience is in North America and the UK, so could you verify this "most tournaments" statement? Another reason why that argument from authority i doesn't quite work is that it comes down to "More people interpreted it this way" is no where near "The peer review, follow up studies and cross referencing appears to support" in terms of consensus. If there are tournaments out there which rule that a roll of always fails, and there are mechanic in the game where this obviously isn't the case, than that authority is wrong no matter the consensus. For an example, this is the truling on Psychic powers from Quarter Master tournament in Queensland. "You can't stack powers of the same name. So casting Enfeeble from multiple psychers onto a single unit/model doesn't work. You could however cast Enfeeble and Misfortune one a single unit/model for example."
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Aug 4, 2013 4:38:13 GMT
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always accumulative" does not mean "bonuses and penalties from multiple iterations of the same malediction are never cumulative". This is a case of denying the sufficient/antecedent and is an invalid form of argument.
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Aug 4, 2013 5:02:06 GMT
there's a reason this argument's still going on. it ain't as clear as it looks on first read. an errata/FAQ would be nice. until then, best to talk it out with your opponent firsthand, or come to an agreement shop-wide (or league, or w/e).
|
|