Stacking abilities rules

[Dorash182]

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Put it this way:

This "Infernal Standard" rule triggers if you are within 9" of an "Infernal Standard". If you are suggesting that having two "Infernal Standards" on the table means the rule triggers twice (once for each standard), then you don't need to be within range of both standards to get the bonus — being within range of either standard means that both standards trigger, even if one of them is on the other side of the table. You would get two "saves", just for being within range of one standard, while the other is still alive.

Does that sound right to you?

The alternative is that the rule only triggers once, no matter how many standards you are within range of.

Now, when a rule talks about "this model" or similar, then clearly it has to trigger once for each model with that rule, instead of once globally.

I'll admit, it's weird that some rules trigger once-per-model while others trigger once-globally, but that's really the only interpretation that produces a sensible answer.

The first thing you say about triggering standards from across the table is simply illogical, nothing indicates that. If you could read what I have written in other replies you can clearly see the legitimate confusion. 

In any case I've finished with this thread; its clear that there is no rules or FAQs of the sort that I would need to satisfy someone who is assured that they get two rolls. 

[Arkiham]

Literally ignored every post I offered...

[Squirrelmaster]

I can understand the confusion. To give an example, if I have a Magic: the Gathering card that gives elves +1/+1, then put another copy of that card into play, elves will now have +2/+2. Each instance of the card has its own instances of each of its abilities, and those instances apply separately.

If you look at the FAQ for Righteous Smiting, there's another example where each instance of a rule triggers separately. And any rule that says "this model" instead of "an X", has to trigger separately for each model with that rule, or it doesn't make sense.

So we definitely have some rules that trigger once-per-model. Yet, the prevalent opinion is that a rule that says "an X", instead of "this model", only triggers once across the board, no matter how many models with that rule are present. Nothing in the rules or FAQ actually spells this out though.

Frankly, a lot of posts where very condescending and unhelpful. "Learn to read English" isn't exactly going to encourage open-minded discussion. Endlessly repeating "it doesn't stack because it says 'an' instead of 'this'", also isn't helpful. Sometimes, one needs to make more of an effort to understand where the confusion is coming from, instead of just repeating the obvious (and unhelpful) like a mantra.

But, yeah. Even if these rule triggered once for each model on the table who had it, like most of the other rules in the game, the condition is still "an X", not "this model", so that would indeed lead to a situation where an Infernal Standard bearer sitting in the corner, miles away from anything, would still have his rule triggered whenever a model within 9" of "an Infernal Standard" was slain. By strict RAW, there's a pretty strong argument for exactly that interpretation, it's only the sheer ridiculousness of it that persuades everyone to divide rules into "triggers once-per-model" and "triggers once across the board".

[Choombatta]

13 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

But, yeah. Even if these rule triggered once for each model on the table who had it, like most of the other rules in the game, the condition is still "an X", not "this model", so that would indeed lead to a situation where an Infernal Standard bearer sitting in the corner, miles away from anything, would still have his rule triggered whenever a model within 9" of "an Infernal Standard" was slain. By strict RAW, there's a pretty strong argument for exactly that interpretation, it's only the sheer ridiculousness of it that persuades everyone to divide rules into "triggers once-per-model" and "triggers once across the board".

This is grammar though, and the whole wording of the ability.

+1 to hit if within 12" of an X. This means, you get +1 to hit, no matter how many in range, as long as at least 1 is. That is just how the grammar works.

The banner at the other end of the table is moot, as the condition is met without even taking him into account, and no, you would not get to stack his ability for many reasons beyond the "an" usage.

People are just reading ambiguity in wording that really does not have any.

Do not get me wrong, there are plenty examples of GW using wording that is ambiguous.

[Squirrelmaster]

Imagine a model had the ability “At the start of your turn, pick an enemy unit. That unit suffers a mortal wound.”

Imagine I had three of that model on the table.

Would that be one mortal around per turn, or three?

[Squirrelmaster]

It's not what the ability does that's in question; It's how many instances of that ability are in effect.

[BURF1]

Dude, your 5 infernal standard settra list isn't ever gonna fly. I don't care how much prize support you think you're gonna cheese by giving 12 necropolis knights 5 extra 6+ saves but that's not how the rule works. It has been explained to you in every way it possibly can be including completely accurate instances of why your interpretation would create silly problems. At this point you're not hearing it because you don't want to.

 

[Dorash182]

1 hour ago, BURF1 said:

Dude, your 5 infernal standard settra list isn't ever gonna fly. I don't care how much prize support you think you're gonna cheese by giving 12 necropolis knights 5 extra 6+ saves but that's not how the rule works. It has been explained to you in every way it possibly can be including completely accurate instances of why your interpretation would create silly problems. At this point you're not hearing it because you don't want to.

 

Forgot to close this browser window and saw this reply. 

I don't play Death. Nowhere did I state I did. And indeed nowhere did I state that I believe the Infernal Banner should be stackable or not. I simply posed the question, using that rule as one example. Its clear that the majority of users of this site are angsty brats however, and so I'll seek out more appropriate venues for discussion should a need arise in the future. Bye, and thanks for confirming the bad name and toxic environment rumours about this site. 

[Arkiham]

15 minutes ago, Dorash182 said:

Forgot to close this browser window and saw this reply. 

I don't play Death. Nowhere did I state I did. And indeed nowhere did I state that I believe the Infernal Banner should be stackable or not. I simply posed the question, using that rule as one example. Its clear that the majority of users of this site are angsty brats however, and so I'll seek out more appropriate venues for discussion should a need arise in the future. Bye, and thanks for confirming the bad name and toxic environment rumours about this site. 

Ah, I see. You're a troll.

 

 

Mod could we delete this guy and this post. 

[avanp]

5 hours ago, Arkiham said:

For this example, is it just a simple check to see if a model is within 3" of a Wrathmonger, or does it apply for each Wrathmonger nearby? I see it as a sort of "If A then +1, if B then 0". We played it round here as it just applies once. 

[BaldoBeardo]

14 minutes ago, avanp said:

For this example, is it just a simple check to see if a model is within 3" of a Wrathmonger, or does it apply for each Wrathmonger nearby? I see it as a sort of "If A then +1, if B then 0". We played it round here as it just applies once. 

That's exactly right.

It doesn't matter how many wrathmonger units are on the board - what you have is effectively multiple copies of a specifically worded rule, with a non-unit/model specific trigger condition that applies a single bonus.

Additional:

It is Friday night. A balmy spring evening as the last of the light fades from the Champs Elysées.

Outside a cafe, a young man suddenly stands, knocking over his table and sending his espresso, laptop and Sartre autobiography spiralling through the air.

Wrenching his glasses from his face, pausing only to take the nonchalantly smouldering Gaulouise from between his lips, he waves his fist at the sky.

"ZOZE BRRRRATS!!", he curses to a confused looking pigeon.

"...boeuf." he says with a shrug as he realises that internet points can't be traded for love.

[Arkiham]

5 hours ago, avanp said:

For this example, is it just a simple check to see if a model is within 3" of a Wrathmonger, or does it apply for each Wrathmonger nearby? I see it as a sort of "If A then +1, if B then 0". We played it round here as it just applies once. 

Yeah as baldo said. But, the way the guy is interpreting it he would claim that it's every wrathmonger.

Could you imagine how op that would be?

[Squirrelmaster]

2 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Yeah as baldo said. But, the way the guy is interpreting it he would claim that it's every wrathmonger.

Could you imagine how op that would be?

And that's kinda the real point here, isn't it? It must be interpretation X, because interpretation Y would be stupidly overpowered/broken. I don't actually disagree with that reasoning, but I think we should be honest about it (and maybe mention it sooner).

7 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

what you have is effectively multiple copies of a specifically worded rule, with a non-unit/model specific trigger condition that applies a single bonus.

But that's exactly the point of confusion: You have multiple copies of that rule. It makes a lot of sense to assume that each "copy" would apply separately, that if you have 5 of these guys on the table, that's 5 copies of this ability, and each of those copies tests for that trigger condition and applies that single bonus — causing the bonus to be applied 5 times if the condition is met.

The only arguments I can see against that interpretation are how ridiculous / overpowered it would be — not in the wording/grammar of the rules themselves.

[BaldoBeardo]

That's kinda the same as arguing the rule of one wouldn't apply to - say - the Orruk Shaman's foot of fork spell because it's on the warscroll buy you've got 3 shamans.

The argument isn't that it's an OP interpretation. The argument is it requires guesswork and semantic shenanigans to create the idea you get to do it more than once.

 

[rokapoke]

@Squirrelmaster, it's not copies of the rule, it's copies of the trigger. "Within X" of a Y" only triggers once regardless of how many Ys you have; it's a yes/no condition. One trigger means one occurrence, regardless of how many copies of that rule exist on the board. 

[Squirrelmaster]

1 minute ago, rokapoke said:

@Squirrelmaster, it's not copies of the rule, it's copies of the trigger. "Within X" of a Y" only triggers once regardless of how many Ys you have; it's a yes/no condition. One trigger means one occurrence, regardless of how many copies of that rule exist on the board. 

I agree that's true; But I don't think it's spelled out clearly in the rules-as-written.

[Arkiham]

19 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

I agree that's true; But I don't think it's spelled out clearly in the rules-as-written.

I found it quite clear tbh. 

I guess it depends on your understanding of English. Not being offensive to anyone mind, just some understand it better than others.

The op clearly understood it , and completely ignored the examples I gave him showing what does stack and then proclaimed that there is no rule which clearly explains it, and the site is offensive as he has heard. (No idea where that is from )

The guy came in with the answer he wanted already decided in his mind and he wasn't interested unless there is a specific passage of text telling him he cant do it 

[BaldoBeardo]

It isn't completely cut and dried, true.

But I think the crucial consideration falls foul of the first rule of dispute resolution;

"Am I being a d**k about this?"

If you use that as your guide, you're golden.

[Squirrelmaster]

@Arkiham

It has nothing to do with understanding English.

OK, let's look at "Righteous Smiting" as an example. The wording is:

"each time you roll a hit roll of 6 or more for one of these models, it can immediately make one extra attack using the same weapon."

That's one trigger, one effect. But if I case Righteous Smiting on the same unit twice (assuming we're playing open, narrative, points-only or whatever - no rules of one), the FAQ states that for each 6+ I roll, I get two extra attacks. Why? Because there are two copies of that spell in play. The wording only specifies one trigger, one effect, but there are two copies of that rule in play.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that if I have two Infernal Standard bearers on the table, I have two copies of that rule in play — the rule only has one trigger and one effect, but each copy of that rule could be evaluated separately.

Indeed, the Righteous Smiting FAQ is the closest thing we have to an official ruling on this.

@BaldoBeardo

Sure, and if someone had said that from the start, I wouldn't have a problem. Instead the OP was repeatedly told that the rule is "cut and dried", and that his failure to understand this meant was either he was an idiot who didn't understand English, or a troll. That's what irks me, here.

[Thomas Lyons]

On March 17, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Dorash182 said:

While I appreciate your in depth reponse, and I can see the logic of your thinking, one thing struck me when using your Q and A example. 

The problem arises around the word "an", which could mean both that one is the same as a dozen, or that each infernal standards qualified it for another use of the rule. Without a proper ruling (in an FAQ or something- like I was hoping had existed and I had overlooked) it is an entirely arbitrary line you've drawn to assume that it should be read one way and not the other. It could as likely be:

Q: Is my slain model within 9" of an Infernal Banner?

A: Yes, two of them.

There is no reason in the wording of the warscroll rule as to why this is not equally valid. I was really hoping some definite answer would be shown to me in the main rules or FAQs in the form of something I had overlooked. To  the contrary though, the FAQs do support multiple uses of the same spells and abilities, though using offensive stuff as an example rather than save-type abilities. 

 

Edit- On re-reading your post, I must point out that "This is saying that a model may only receive one save" is pure conjecture, as I've read nothing to support this statement through all of the rules and FAQs. You're making a normative claim which is fine, but not helpful when arguing against someone who only responds to substantive claims.

 

Edit 2- To summarise the issue better, after re-reading reading your Q and A example again, I've realised that you are actually correct that that is how it should be framed, however your error is to assume that the Q and A should only be peformed once, when "an" doesn't indicate this. If it had said "ANY" or "At least one" rather than "an", it would be clear that it should be read as you've stated. Even better if it outright stated in the warscroll "this benefit can only be used once per model". 

If it had a general rule in the main rules stating that these types of abilities could only be used a single time then it would also be clearer, though not water tight.... Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant.

I think you are mixing up the linguistic function of definite and indefiniteness.  Both "a" or "an" are indefinite articles; you're asking if any very of this thing is in range.  Both "the" and this" are definite (one is an article, one a demonstrative pronoun), and asking the question with regards to a specific instance of that thing.  The rules with indefinite articles don't care how many of that thing are within range, just that they are within range.  Rules using definite articles/pronouns are asking about particular instances and need to be checked for each of those things.  

[BaldoBeardo]

"You may immediately."

It's not compulsory, and the immediately qualifier means it's there and then.

So even if you're running with the multiple version theory, you can't comply with the wording of the rule more than once, because you've done something else instead.

This seems difficult because the level of query here is like asking people to explain how they walk. There is a basic level of understanding here that is so fundamental that people don't generally need to explain it.

[Squirrelmaster]

11 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

"You may immediately."

It's not compulsory, and the immediately qualifier means it's there and then.

So even if you're running with the multiple version theory, you can't comply with the wording of the rule more than once, because you've done something else instead.

This seems difficult because the level of query here is like asking people to explain how they walk. There is a basic level of understanding here that is so fundamental that people don't generally need to explain it.

The only one of the rules that we've quoted in this thread to use the phrase "you may immediately" is Righteous Smiting — which is the only one GW have explicitly FAQ'd does stack.

You have just argued that the one-and-only rule from this entire thread to have received an explicit ruling from GW, does not work the way the official GW FAQ explicitly states that it does. Because of wording that is not found in any of the other rules we're discussing. As a basis for claiming that those other rules also do not work the way GW have explicitly ruled that Righteous Smiting does.

Then claimed that the understanding required for this is so basic as to be akin to explaining how to walk.

[BaldoBeardo]

35 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

The only one of the rules that we've quoted in this thread to use the phrase "you may immediately" is Righteous Smiting — which is the only one GW have explicitly FAQ'd does stack.

You have just argued that the one-and-only rule from this entire thread to have received an explicit ruling from GW, does not work the way the official GW FAQ explicitly states that it does. Because of wording that is not found in any of the other rules we're discussing. As a basis for claiming that those other rules also do not work the way GW have explicitly ruled that Righteous Smiting does.

Then claimed that the understanding required for this is so basic as to be akin to explaining how to walk.

Edit:

Back up - RS is a spell. Spells have almost always universally stacked.

We're talking abilities?

[Squirrelmaster]

Yes, but I'm asking why abilities don't stack but spells do — where in the rules does this difference come from? Comparing RS to Bloodreavers, both have a single trigger clause and a single effect — so why is it that two castings of RS will trigger separately, but two Bloodreavers will not?

Aside from "it's just common sense" or "it would be horribly OP", or "don't be a d**k" — assume a complete newbie with no experience of the game balance, trying to make sense of the game from the rules-as-written alone.

[BaldoBeardo]

Abilities generally don't require any action - you just have them.

Spells incur a risk of failure to cast, an opportunity for the opponent to negate, and a character focussing on casting which means they're likely not doing anything else.

Risk vs. reward.

It's not about rules, it's about game design/balance.