The Fear rules could be read as saying that surges spent on overcoming Fear give the attack the "overcomes X ranks of Fear" trait, and it doesn't matter how many times you have to overcome X ranks of Fear. The rules say that you have to spend surges and that the surges spent in this way can't be used to activate other abilities, but it doesn't say that you are actually spending the surges on anything in particular. In fact, without the last sentence, you could technically spend 3 surges on +1 damage and that would also let you overcome Fear 3 as a side-effect.

"When attacking a figure with the Fear ability, the attacker must spend 1 power surge for every rank of Fear the figure possesses. If the attacker cannot spend enough surges to overcome the Fear ability, the attack automatically misses.

Surges spent to overcome this ability are wasted and cannot be used to activate other abilities."

Now, again, I think the most natural and straightforward reading is that you are spending the surges to overcome a specific source of Fear, but the text doesn't actually say that. It just says that the surges have to be spent , and that the same surges can't be spent on other abilities .

the attacker must spend 1 power surge for every rank of Fear the figure possesses.

I think it's clear that you have to spend one surge for each level of fear the figure possesses and then go on spending more surges for a second figure with the fear skill and so on. All this is why there is the rule that you can aim a single target with an area effect attack and not use the blast/breath skill.

Overlord999 said:

Actually that rule was introduced to prevent the situation where a hero with grapple gets into a corner square adjacent to a dragon or other monster with a breath attack. The breath template can't hit that corner square and the monster can't move. But that's beside the point.

Parathion said:

BTW, this particular part (stacking from different figures/sources not being allowed) is wrong.

Command, Black Curse etc.

Effects from different figures do stack.

Unless of course, 2 Master Beastman both provide the same Command 1...

1. The first cited sentence is 100% correct, so your first statement is incorrect.

2. Your statement is incorrect as a whole. Two figures with Command 1 still don´t give Command 2. They give Command 1 twice. The effect may be the same in this case, but it clearly does not stack. Stacking is meant that the ranks from different sources add up e.g. Pierce 2 and Pierce 3 gives Pierce 5. Are you able to see the difference? Good!

Parathion said:

You have a very different definition of "stack" then the rest of us then, and that might be part of the problem.

From JitD:

Command
A figure with Command adds 1 to the damage and range of all attacks made by friendly figures within three spaces of it (including itself, and ignoring line of sight). If there are multiple figures with Command within three spaces of a figure, the effects stack (e.g., the figure would add 2 to the damage and range of its attacks if two figures with the Command ability were within three spaces of it).

They stack to effectively give the equivalent of Command 2. Its coming from multiple sources, and its stacking to create Command 2. Dark Prayer stacks to give -2 range and -2 damage. Dark Prayer doesn't actually even have ranks to it, and it still stacks . Saying that Fear does not stack, IMO, is ignoring these instances and putting Fear into its own category.

Even if you don't agree with that, you second statement doesn't help your case a concerning Fear to me. Using your logic, two monsters with Fear 1 give Fear 1 twice. By that logic, you would have to pay a surge for each one since abilities from multiple sources are all valid. You can't just ignore one of them since effects from multiple sources, as is shown in the example with Command, stack and must be accounted for.

Ok, stacking is used in the Command definition as adding up the effects, no objection. It still is not Command 2 the same way Pierce 3 + Pierce 2 gives Pierce 5.

And I wasn´t making a point towards the Fear discussion. Not at all. Of course you have two figures with Fear 1 and not a "total effect" of Fear 2 - at least we agree that much.

Parathion said:

I don't see how that is really different though (which could be a failing on my part). You are adding the Pierce from two different sources and stacking it to make Pierce 5. You could easily say that the armor is hit with a Pierce 3 and then again by Pierce 2 and it would pretty much come out the same wouldn't it?

Well, there theoretically could exist abilities for which applying the rank 1 version twice produced a different result than applying the rank 2 version. For example, if you redefined Knockback to have ranks with ranks = max distance (as they almost did with some weapons anyway), then Knockback 5 is capable of moving an ogre two spaces, while Knockback 3 and Knockback 2 each do nothing individually. If they had defined the ranks of Aura as increasing radius instead of damage, then Aura 2 could be wildly different from two Aura 1s (one damage within 2 spaces vs. 2 damage within 1 space).

So the difference could be significant, at least in principle. Whether it actually is significant in any particular case is a separate discussion.

Antistone said:

Very true.

Parathion said:

1. Is your reading comprehension really that bad? Well, it would explain a lot.

2. As Remy pointed out, the Command definition explicitly states it stacks. It explictly states that the effects (not the ranks) stack. The ranks stacking or not is really a total red herring, because all the ranks do is tell us that we have the effect multiple times, which is exactly the same as effect stacking, despite what Antistone says about the possibility of there being a different way to do things. So far, at least, there is no effect that does that.

3. Purely aside from the fact that you just completely made up that objection with no basis whatsoever*, so what! The effects explicitly add up the same way that multiple ranks add up. Command 5 has exactly the same effect as command 3 and command 2. Fear 2 has exactly the same effect as Fear 1 and Fear 1.
*Is this another example of you making up rules to support your argument - like the one about 'stacking' only referring to effects from a single source?

4. Again with the reading comprehesion. Big Remy did not in any way agree with you that "2x Fear 1 does not create Fear 2" in his statement. He said that using your logic (which does not indicate agreement with it and implies disagreement even if he hadn't already previously disagreed) the end result is still paying for both Fear - leaving unsaid the part where this is identical to paying for Fear 2.

FAQ pg 6
Q: Do special abilities stack?
A: Special abilities that require you to spend surges are designed to stack. So if you have an ability such as “~: +1 Damage and Pierce 1,” and you pay 3 surges, you gain +3 Damage and Pierce 3. Some items may explicitly limit your surge spending/stacking, but those are the exception to the rule

It is very simple.
Fear is a special ability.
Fear requires you to spend surges. (Note that from command we know that special abilities that do not require surges may/do also stack. The answer to this question does not invalidate that, though it is badly written that it does not include them.)
Ergo, definitively, Fear is designed to stack.
That the example is not the same as Fear does not matter - it is an example, not a definitive list. It is an invalid argument to claim that because something is different from an example of a list item, it therefore is not part of the list.
Fear meets all particulars of the ruling statement.

The rules (FAQ at least) are clear and definitive. Fear stacks. There is absolutely no need to put this as another question.

Corbon, you have to realize that those are incredibly crappy arguments.

There exist abilities that do not stack, such as Web, Knockback, Poison, etc.. Citing a FAQ answer that says that a particular category of abilities is designed to stack does not even begin to count as support for the claim that an ability not in that category stacks. And simultaneously claiming that the passage is poorly written and that it is clear and definitive strongly suggests that you are using a double standard.

Arguing that two instances of Fear 1 must be the same as one instance of Fear 2 because all existing abilities work that way is blatantly begging the question. There is no rule that states that all existing abilities are designed to work that way, that's simply a conclusion you've drawn by enumerating all existing abilities and checking to see whether they follow that guideline. But since the topic of debate is whether or not Fear follows that guideline, you can't complete that enumeration without assuming a specific answer to the debate. Therefore, you don't get to use that conclusion in the debate.

The rules do not actually say that you have to spend surges separately for every target with Fear. I posted a detailed explanation of this nearly 2 weeks ago (reply #25) and I can't find any place where someone challenged any of my conclusions, so I have to assume that you are now vehemently arguing back and forth over the exact degree of ambiguity and whether or not it passes some magical threshold in your head that justifies bugging the designers. I don't think you're likely to get anywhere with that, not least because no one has even proposed what that threshold should be, or any objective way of measuring it.

Antistone said:

Excuse me?

Fear is explictly in that particular category of abilities ('special abilities'). Fear explicitly requires surges to be spent. Fear explicitly meets all requirements of the FAQ answer. How you can possibly argue, or take from my last post, that Fear is not in that category of abilities is beyond me.
What I did point out is that even if it didn't stack (rank), the effects stack which is exactly the same thing, really.
And I didn't use that citation to count as support for another ability not in that category. There is already an ability (Command) not covered by that citation that explicitly stacks and which implies that other non-ranked abilities (such as Black Curse) also stack. I pointed out that despite what you posted earlier having ranks is basically the same as having effects stacking because ranking and stacking do exactly the same thing. They make the same effect happen multiple times or extend additional amounts.

As far as claiming the passage is both poorly written and clear, I stand by that.
The passage is explicit and clear in what and how it does. Quite astonishingly clear for FFG in fact.
It is poorly written because there are other things that work exactly the same way and by unnecessarily limiting the subject of the reply some erratic thinkers may conclude incorrectly that the answer implies that only that subject works that way.

As for the rest of your post you seem to have gone off on a tangent and gotten lost.
If the effects stack, then it is irrelevent whether they are Fear 1 and Fear 1, or just Fear 2. Those are ranks. If the effects stack, the effects stack.

Your post #25 was not wrong, at least not clearly enough wrong that any individual point could be easily argued (actually there was at least one dodgy point there, but nothing much to be gained in arguing it). But it completely ignored that fact that Fear stacks, definitively, accordin to the FAQ.

Since you apparently couldn't read it the last time, here it is again.

FAQ pg 6
Q: Do special abilities stack?
A: Special abilities that require you to spend surges are designed to stack . So if you have an ability such as “~: +1 Damage and Pierce 1,” and you pay 3 surges, you gain +3 Damage and Pierce 3. Some items may explicitly limit your surge spending/stacking, but those are the exception to the rule

It is very simple.
Fear is a special ability.*
Fear requires you to spend surges. (Note that from command we know that special abilities that do not require surges may/do also stack. The answer to this question does not invalidate that, though it is badly written that it does not include them.)
Ergo, definitively, Fear is designed to stack.

(added) We know from the Command description that different sources with the same ability may stack. We know from the FAQ that Fear stacks. Therefore Fear 1 from A and Fear 1 from B stacks and results in Fear 2 for an attack that hits both A and B.

*DJitD pg 22, from the top.
Special Abilities
The following section describes all of the special abilities found in the game. ...
Fear...

Where is my popcorn? This is becoming quite the debate!

Corbon said:

Wow. I took the comment about Command as meaning that you thought that Fear should be included by extension, because it didn't even occur to me that you'd argue that Fear was in the category addressed. I guess I should've read that more carefully, and I apologize for that, but...wow.

Fear is not a surge ability. If you insist on being pedantic and using the "abilities that require you to spend surges" exact wording, then it is still excluded because it requires opponents to spend surges, not you.

I think the example makes it quite clear what they're talking about, and it is not the named abilities listed in the back of the manual. You honestly believe it intentionally means "surge abilities, plus Fear, Bash, and Dark Prayer?" I have to say, I think that's obviously an abusive reading. What conceivable thought process would cause someone to write an answer that intentionally applied specifically to that set of abilities?

Corbon said:

Well, if the effects stack in the particular way you want, that amounts to the same thing in this case, yes. But as that's the point in contention, you don't get to assume the effects stack if you want to participate in the discussion. That's what you're supposed to argue for , not argue from .

Corbon said:

It implies nothing of the kind. As it happens, some abilities not covered by the citation stack, others not covered by the citation don't stack. Abilities not covered by the citation are not covered by the citation and the citation says nothing about them.

You are also taking advantage of the fact that the term "stack" is ambiguous to make your case seem more straightforward than it is. In the case of Command (where the rules actually use the term "stack"), it could be interpreted as meaning either that the two instances of Command specially combine into a single super-effect that gives +2 instead of +1, or it could simply mean that affected units get the +1 once for each instance and that no special rule exists to prevent the bonuses from accumulating.

The ambiguity in the way Fear works is eliminated only if it stacks in the former sense (the two instances of the ability are combined into a single, different effect)--if they are simply processed in series, then the ambiguity remains, because it's not clear that the same surges spent on one instance of Fear can't be spent on another instance of Fear (you are forbidden from spending them "on other abilities," but one can argue that spending it on "a different instance of the same ability" would be allowed).

There was never any debate as to whether both instances of Fear apply to the attack, only a question as to how they apply.

Antistone said:

1. no worries. We are all capable of misreading others' posts, me included.

2. I disagree. Fear is a special ability (definitively, it is specifically listed as such) affecting the attack, that requires you, the attacker, to spend surges. It meets all the qualifications. It isn't your fear that you have to pay for, but it is still a special ability, affecting your attack, that you have to pay surges for.
As I already stated, I don't believe it is a valid argument to state that because an example from a list is different from other members of that list then those other members are excluded. Fear meets the qualifications, all of them, it is therefore included. I don't know why they wrote it that way*, but that's what they wrote. Frankly, as already mentioned, although it is a very clear and specific answer, it is poorly written because there are also special abilities that don't require surges that do stack, and rank - not to mention that Special Abilities covers two different types of things (both 'skills/creature abilities' and 'item abilities'.
*actually, I rather suspect I do, but it would be impolite to state why.

3/5. Umm, what else could stacking mean? The only place we see it's results defined is under Command where two monsters with Command (no rank, so 1 each by definition) have their command stack and explicitly add 2 to range and damage (not one, twice). Besides which, what difference does it make. Adding 1, twice, is the same as adding 2, once. The only way it is different is if you add 1, once. Which is what Parathion is trying to argue for Fear.
There are three options;
a) stacking combines like a rank. C1 + C1 (-> C2) = +2 damage and +2 range (this is how it works in the examples we have, both command and FAQ answer)
b) stacking combines but does not rank. C1 + C1 (-> C1, twice) = +1+1 damage and +1+1 range (= +2 damage and +2 range!)
c) not-stacking stacking. C1 + C1 (-> C1, twice) = +1 damage and range, yes +1 damage and range already done (= +1 damage and +1 range)
I'm arguing that a) and b) are basically identical and c) cannot be described as stacking by any stretch of my imagination at least. You appear to be arguing that there is an important fundamental distinction between a) and b). I don't understand what it might be, particularly with the whole argument being about option c) AFAICT. (edit: ok, see 6.)

4. So you are stating that the fact that command stacks (from different sources) does not imply that Black Curse stacks? So if you were to be within 3 spaces of two Master Dark Priests (are there that many?) you would not take a -2 to range and damage? And further, not stack that effect with being downhill (fighting an elevated figure) which is also a -1 range and damage (per level if there are multiple levels). I agree that it is not explicit, but surely you have to admit an implication.

6. Ahh, I get it now. Ok, so thats the dubious piece of your original argument that I previously didn't think was worth an argument about.
DJitD pg 10
Using Power Surges (Heroes): ... A hero may trigger a specific effect more than once for a single attack, as long as he rolled enough power surges to do so.
You may trigger the effect for Fear (cancel it) more than once as long as you rolled enough surges to do so.

Two Fear effects from two sources are either the same effect or different effects, there is no other option.
If it they are different effects then you must obviously pay for each individually as you can't spend the same surge on two different effects as is obvious from the example.
If they are the same effect then you have two possibilities.
i) the first surge spent on the effect can be spent again because it is the same effect. If this is true then I can spend a single surge infinitely with an axe because it is the same effect. As well as being counter to every example of surge spending you will ever see, this is patently ridiculous and breaks the game.
ii)the first surge spent on the effect cannot be spent again and a new surge must be spent on the effect to cancel the other part of it.

iii) (only one surge is needed because it is option c above is in force) is ruled out because we are discussing at this point, purely whether a) and b) are functionally the same or not.

So in summary, I can't see a functional difference between a) and b) and cannot see any possibility of c) being considered stacking.

So, if Fear stacks (which I believe it exactly fits the definitions for, despite your objection), then it costs 2 surges to pay for 2 Fear 1s regardless of the exact methodology involved. Option c, which is what the argument is about, is not possible if Fear stacks - unless you fundamentally break the game with a dubious wording twist.

Corbon said:

I'm not suggesting excluding some abilities because they're unlike the example, I'm suggesting excluding some abilities because they came very close to describing a natural and consistent grouping that has been previously referenced as a category, so absent any contrary indications, it is reasonable to assume that they are trying to reference the same category here, even if they messed up the description slightly. And that category doesn't include Fear.

But if you insist on totally disregarding intent and taking it exactly word-for-word as written, then we run into another problem. The answer says it applies to "special abilities." The list on page 22 specifically says that it lists all special abilities in the game. Obviously, expansions could add more, but none of the expansions list "~: +1 damage and Pierce 1" as a special ability, either. Therefore, the example directly and explicitly contradicts the answer. Having proved a contradiction, we can then trivially prove any and all propositions we wish, which should be quite a time-saver in future discussions.

(The rules about spending surges (p.10) refer to the things you spend them on as special effects , though of course it does not actually define this term.)

Sorry, but even trying to apply this answer to Fear looks totally insane to me.

Corbon said:

I'm not saying that those don't stack, I'm saying that you can't infer that they necessarily do or do not stack based only on the fact that something else does or does not stack. It is not logically necessary that every single effect in the entire game follow exactly the same conventions. That's like saying that Poison must inflict 1 effect token on each attack that inflicts damage (not wounds) because Web works that way.

Stacking in sense (b) I think is the logical default behavior, because it means that each stated effect is taking place and no special interactions occur. Stacking in sense (a) or prohibiting stacking in sense © would each require a special rule governing the interaction of multiple similar effects.

Corbon said:

Unfortunately, you are assuming away as "obvious" the only point of contention.

Fear doesn't say that you have to spend surges on it . It just says that surges have to be spent .

If there was a hypothetical ability " Out of Reach: Attacks against figures with Out of Reach automatically fail unless the attack originates from elevated ground," and you attack two figures with Out of Reach from elevated ground, you'd be fine. When you check the first one, you're on elevated ground, so you pass. When you check the second one, you're still on elevated ground, so you still pass. I hope no one would argue that you must need to stand on doubly elevated ground in order to count as having that advantage in both cases.

Similarly, if a Dark Elf is standing in a tree, you don't have to somehow be doubly adjacent to hit it through two layers of Shadowcloak .

So if Fear 1 means "the attack fails unless it spent at least 1 surge on overcoming Fear," then you can spend 1 surge on overcoming Fear, and when it checks the first Fear 1, you've spent at least 1 surge, so you're OK, and when it checks the second Fear 1, you've still spent at least 1 surge on Fear, so you're still OK.

I'm not arguing that this is the best reading of the ability, just that the text doesn't rule it out.

Shmoozer said:

+999

Antistone said:

1. There are two natural groupings - two different natural groupings both explicitly described by the same title. The example only shows one of them. It is an example, it naturally will only show one of them. While I understand what you are saying, it directly contravenes the rules to rule out one entire grouping because a) the example was from the other grouping and b) not all of the potentially-ruled-out grouping is a natural fit for the rule. It might make partial sense to do so, but it also is explicitly against what the rules say and it unnecessarily creates this potential uncertainty around resolving Fear.

2. There are two grouping of things defined specifically as Special Abilities. One is what we might describe as figure special abilities and one is what we might describe as item special abilities. Yes, the part on page 22 where it says that it lists all the special abilities in the game is clearly in error. I don't believe that having this minor error, we can then abandon any and all rules of our choosing to trivially prove any proposition.
The facts remain:
- Fear is a Special Ability
- Fear requires you to spend surges
- Special abilities that require you to spend surges are designed to stack.
-> Fear stacks.

Incidentally, I think it is actually consistent on pg10. Special Abilities refers to the 'ability' to spend surges for certain 'effects'. The 'effects' are what happens when you actually spend the surges.

3. Interesting that you think having Fear stacking is insane yet propose that it is entirely legitimate according to some reading of the rules to spend the same surge twice.

4. Ok, I get it. Waaaay back, I didn't clearly write that command implied default stackage where appropriate . My bad, sorry. Then I took your disclaimer to mean that you thought none of them should stack (using stack to mean add the effects from different sources together), which I think is clearly wrong (2 Black Curses clearly should be a net -2 to range and damage). The whole everything stacks is a completely different idea (and thread) that you gave me!

4a. How to stack: We have precisely 2 official references to what happens when you stack that I can find. One is in the Command description, the other in the FAQ answer (which is also is the other rulebooks as a FAQ answer). Both tell you the result of stacking is to add the effects together into one effect. The Command reference specifies that you add 2 to the range and damage of the attack. The FAQ answer specifies that the attack gains +3 Damage and Pierce 3. It doesn't matter that you think that the natural effect of stacking is type b), the rules specify type a) twice out of two. That is how you do stacking. Stacking in sense b) is entirely made up without rules basis and not-stacking in sense c) is a different debate, which out to be satisfied by the proof that Fear stacks.
Definitively, I believe, stacking is a simple adding together of multiple effects into one larger effect.

5. Sorry. I seem to be subtly missing your 'one point of contention' each time. It feels like the goal posts keep moving, but it is my fault because each time you reply I understand it differently.
The 'obvious' part here, was that each surge can only be spent once. The example is 'obvious' in that it shows you can spend the surges in several ways and combinations, but each surge is only spent once . Once spent, it cannot be spent again on either the same abilty (effect) or a different ability (effect).

6. If a surge is spent then it is gone, it cannot be spent again on the same ability, or on a different ability. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

7. Ahh, now it comes together, I think.
You seem to be saying, that Ranks and Stacking are not the same. Fair enough, having explored this in more detail, I guess they are not.
Ranks specifically are supposed to have their effect explained in their individual text explanations.
Stacking is not ever explained but in every example simply adds together.
That leaves us in a quandary when we get a Ranked effect that has multiple sources. Should it also stack (add)? Should it simply add the ranks together for a larger ranked effect (which seems the most obvious)? Or should the 2nd/'weaker' source simply act independently (and often have no effect)
Some are obvious - there is no point in stacking grapple since if you can't spend movement points you can't spend movement points. (That doesn't mean grapple can't stack, just that there is no effect if it does stack so no point in declaring it as stackable or not.)
Some are less obvious - apparently Fear is one (FAQ rule aside for the moment), yet apparently Pierce is not less obvious, despite their being no actual reason why Pierce 2 from a weapon and Pierce 2 from a skill could not be ignoring the same 2 points of Armour for a net Pierce 2 (has anyone ever thought of playing this way - surely not?)
So, it seems the 'one point of contention' (setting aside the Fear definitively stacks argument) is that we have a Ranked effect (Fear) with multiple sources and we aren't sure how to deal with the combination of Ranking and Stacking (and if there even is a combination).
IMO we have enough examples around between Command and Trickster, not to mention the unquestioned(?) combining of Ranks with Pierce and Aura, to decide that Ranked abilities stack the ranks (rather than the effects) when there are multiple sources of the ability.
But I can (finally) see how it could be argued that the rules are not definitive here.

Regardless, Fear stacks as per the FAQ, so 2x Fear 1 figures hit by the same attack require 2 surges to be spent.

Corbon said:

Look, you're not even passing the straight face test here. I am typing up detailed responses against my better judgement, and I apologize if this comes across as ill-tempered...

1. The second group in question is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "natural" grouping. It covers only a couple abilities, they're all radically different, and you have already stated (in another thread ) that you don't think that any of the other abilities in this group (Bash and Dark Prayer) stack if you get them more than once. Even if the grouping was natural, either in the abstract or in the context of this ruling, grammatically, that phrase refers to a single group, not two groups, so either you have to argue that those three special cases plus surge abilities are collectively a natural grouping or this still doesn't work.

And interpreting this FAQ answer my way doesn't create an ambiguity with Fear, it happens not to resolve an existing ambiguity with Fear. Just like it doesn't resolve any of hundreds of existing ambiguities elsewhere in the rules. Heck, you haven't remotely convinced me that it resolves the ambiguity with Fear even if we read the ruling your way, especially when you say that other abilities that you say are covered by this ruling don't stack in the way you want Fear to stack.

2. So now we're going to completely ignore a crystal-clear statement in the rules that could easily be completely correct except that it conflicts with the way you want to interpret this ruling, AND we're making up coincidentally useful terminology that you can't cite being used anywhere before ever (page 10 uses the word "ability" only in referencing Knockback), in order to say that this FAQ answer, in a notoriously sloppy FAQ, that appears to have made a simple terminology mistake, is actually the only correct rule in a mountain of error. And this is what you call "clear and definitive?"

Not to mention--referring to the option to spend surges as the "ability" and the stuff you get for spending surges as "effects" doesn't resolve the contradiction, because by that terminology, the example shows the effects stacking. It doesn't even talk about having multiple copies of the "ability" by that definition. So even if we use your completely arbitrary and abusive terminology, you still haven't actually solved anything, the FAQ answer is still self-contradictory as written.

3. I never said that. I have stressed repeatedly and at length that I was not saying that.

4a. The stacking method you are arguing for cannot exist unless an algorithm for combining multiple effects into a single super effect is specified. Definitionally. And that algorithm cannot be "as adding ranks," since your examples cover Command (which didn't have ranks when the example was written) and +damage (which isn't even a special ability). Similarly, it cannot be "as applying the effect twice, independently," because that's the same as stacking method (b) and effectively concedes the point to me.

I have yet to hear you even propose what the general algorithm ought to be, let alone find one in the rules. The examples are trivially explained as simplified language by someone who (quite reasonably) didn't think about or didn't care about the distinction because it didn't matter for any case that the rules were actually intended to cover.

So you have yet to even propose the prerequisites for this theory to be taken seriously, and I honestly have no idea what you could propose.

7. I am trying to avoid the term "stacking" because it is a loaded term and we seem to be having difficulty agreeing what it actually means. I am saying that Fear, as literally written, does not require you to spend surges on itself to negate it, it merely specifies that you should check whether surges were spent (past tense) during the resolution of the attack. Whether or not surges were spent (past tense) does not change if you check twice .

That does indeed involve the assertion that applying the ability twice might produce a different effect than adding the ranks, but that is hardly the core point.

Your example with Grapple is apt. It is, according to you , an example of a case where applying the same effect twice results in no actual change. The argument is that Fear is another case in which you apply the same effect twice and the net result does not change . By your own example, you specifically admit that sort of thing is a possibility.

Your example with Pierce is irrelevant. And it seems you've already figured out why while I was composing this response, so I won't elaborate.

Antistone said:

1 and 2. I refer you to DJitD page 22, where Fear is explicitly listed as a 'Special Ability' (one of many, basically the complete set of Special Abilities that belong to heroes or monsters). I refer you also to DJitD Pg21 (the card Almanac) that specifically names surge abilities from items as 'Special Abilities'. It is not my terminology, it is FFG's. I believe this invalidates quite a lot of what you said in 1 and 2 since it appear to be based on me 'making something up' which is right there in black and white.
There are two distinct 'natural groupings' of special abilities. Fear is explicitly a Special Ability. Grammatically I think you are talking bollocks, but since I have more respect for your grammatical parsing than anyone I've ever shared a forum with, I'm extremely cautious with that statement. There is one group called Special Abilities. It has two subgroups. All members of one subgroup and some (one?) members of the other subgroups require the spending of surges. The statement Special abilities that require you to spend surges are designed to stack is not invalidated grammatically by this as far as I can tell, nor does it contradict any of the known facts other than two abilities (Bash and Dark Prayer) which do not appear to have any possibility of stacking (ie there is only one source for each possible in any one attack) and have their own expliclit surge spending methodology that makes stacking meaningless.

It is very likely a sloppy mistake on the part of whoever answered it. But it is clear and specific non-the-less and there is no real concrete evidence to invalidate it. And frankly, it works, mistake or not. It gives us a clear answer to something we didn't have a cear answer to before. Better a bad order than no order.

4. Ok, whatever. We have a method exampled in two places, both working exactly the same. But that method cannot exist because it has not been defined definitively anywhere. So no method exists for spending surges on anything because there has been no definitive explanation of spending surges anywhere. Your point if you want it.

7. The core point is whether or not an attack that hits two monsters with Fear 1 must pay 1 or 2 surges in order not to miss due to Fear.
We can't agree on what stacking means because you correctly that it is never defined and then insist that despite having two identical examples of it's application, both explicitly identifed as examples of stacking, we can't give it a definition. So the examples are worthless. I understand the frustration that my 'stacking' 'definition' has slowly modified (or condensed) as more information and discussion came to light - that's the whole point of discussion.
Anyway, got your point. Fear Ranks, but doesn't (FAQ answer aside) clearly stack, so we are left with no information in what to do.
this is exactly why I started the other thread in order to try and find a pattern that helps us draw conclusions rather than needing every single interaction uniquely specified.