Arcane Reservoir

[Hookers]

I have always assumed that if you had two models with Arcane Reservoir in play that you would only increase your hand size by one.

Can someone explain why?

"Because effects of the same name do not stack."

And to that, J'ai dit au contrare mon frere. It is not exactly true.

Stacking Effects

Ongoing game effects do not stack on a model if received from Talents or Spells with the same name unless indicated otherwise in their descriptions. Ignore additional applications of the same named effect to that model.

Ah ha.

Arcane Reservoir

Increase this model's crew's maximum hand size while this model is in play

So the effect is on the crew, not the model. Therefore the is no rule not allowing it to stack and if you had multiple models in play with Arcane Reservoir would you be increasing your hand size by one for each instance.

Additionally, even if the effect were deemed to be on the model, the effect is on different models. In other words the effect is never stacking because it is effecting two different models.

Did everyone else already know this and I'm just an idiot?

[mythicFOX]

Stop. Please. You're just making noises with your mouth now, these aren't even words

Think that sig line more or less sums up where this thread has got to. A clear ruling was given by a Marshall on page one, we are now on page six and have nothing to show for it.

It's not like people are even seeking further clarification, no one is confused by the ruling or exactly how it works, or has come up with any troubling issues or interactions stemming from said ruling.

People need to get on with the game now. No good is coming of this thread.

[Todd]

Think that sig line more or less sums up where this thread has got to. A clear ruling was given by a Marshall on page one, we are now on page six and have nothing to show for it.

To be fair, its coming from both sides. Ironically, we'd still be on page 5 if it wasn't for the last two posts pointing out how useless other people's posts have become.

It's not like people are even seeking further clarification, no one is confused by the ruling or exactly how it works, or has come up with any troubling issues or interactions stemming from said ruling.

That is exactly what I've been seeking. I'm not angry with, nor do I even disagree with the ruling. I'm not confused either. A ruling can make sense and be completely reasonable, yet still produce questions related to its implications. I've asked fairly specific questions regarding these implications. Do I really need to scour the rules for another instance where these implications might come into play, just so I can start a new thread and ask the same questions I'm asking here?

We all should probably just agree to disagree. We have poster's who still have questions about the rule, poster's who are upset/confused by the rules, and poster's who just want everyone else to shut up and stop having an opinion. However, since participation is voluntary, I'm having a hard time understanding why the latter group doesn't just bow out of the discussion.

You're right about one thing. No good is coming from this thread now. If the RMs aren't going to contribute anything further, they might as well close it.