OK, so obviously a single psyker can't cast enfeeble multiple times in one turn, but if I've got two or more psykers each with enfeeble, can they all cast it on one target to have the -1 strength and toughness stack?

Also, in the unlikely event you had enough casts to reduce the targets S or T down to zero, would the unit just automatically die with no saves allowed (as per the Zero Level Characteristics section in the BRB?).

I just really really want to cast it multiple times on a huge unit of Ork Boyz and make them all just lie down and die...

The same Malediction does not stack according to the BRB

Yes. BRB states clearly that blessing and maledictions are cumulative, so if you've got it multiple times in your army you should be able to cast it multiple times. As far as I can see, it has no limit on how far you can take the stat, so yes, you should be able to actually kill a whole unit with it. There are possibly better ways, but I'd love to see the look on your opponents face... Only need to get it off 3 times for an Eldar unit, for example...

What units are out there that are S or T1?

...time passes...

Ok so just went through the reference in the rulebook - looks like the only things you can really kill off with this would be Ratlings or Sanctioned Psykers from IG, since they are only S2. Lowest for anything else is 3 - so you gotta get it three times, and manage to get all three in range and cast successfully within a single turn. Not impossible...!

- Edit -

Scratch all that. Maledictions stack but BRB states that you can't take stats below 1. Damn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marshall Ragnar wrote:
The same Malediction does not stack according to the BRB

Where does it say that it doesn't? It says quite specifically that it does in the Psykers section... Is there another section that countermands that?

I don't have the BRB on me (at work) but I think it is where the Maledictions are explained.

BRB pg 68: 'Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, . .'

Note that it specifies DIFFERENT maledictions.

This came up in another thread recently (and the Eldar FAQ collection thread, to boot).

It's unclear at the moment - how do you define "different"? Must they be different powers entirely, or - to borrow a gaming term - do different instances of the same power count as different?

Personally I'm erring on the side of the latter.

Currently, yes they do stack.
You have permission to cast a spell.
A different Psyker can cast the same spell.
At no point is there a restriction from applying both effects.

Doesn't matter how "different" is defined, that rule is giving permission to stack, but not restricting anything from stacking.

The big questions is around what is meant by 'different powers' - it's really not clear whether it's different types of maledictions or just different instances of the same power.

You can def take characteristics down to zero tho, with the exception of initiatinve. The latest errata says:

ERRATA
Page 2 – Modifiers
Change the last sentence to “A model’s Initiative cannot be modified below 1, and no other characteristic can be modified below 0”.

It's never going to be a competative tactic, but it would be fun. I might try 5 daemon princes with level 3 biomancy which gives potentially enough enfeebles to kill whole units

This is my interpretation of 'Different' in regards to Maledictions stacking:

Gift of Contagion (CSM) is a malediction.

Enfeeble is a malediction.

Gift of Contagion + Enfeeble DO stack as they are different maledictions.

Enfeeble + Enfeeble DO NOT stack as they are the same malediction. i.e. not different.

Edit: As for reducing characteristics below 1, the malediction section (pg 68) forbids this.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
This is my interpretation of 'Different' in regards to Maledictions stacking:

Gift of Contagion (CSM) is a malediction.

Enfeeble is a malediction.

Gift of Contagion + Enfeeble DO stack as they are different maledictions.

Enfeeble + Enfeeble DO NOT stack as they are the same malediction. i.e. not different.

Exactly how I read it. It is the same Malidiction being cast by different psychers.

Ah, I'd missed the bit under Maledictions about not reducing below 1. Not a huge loss there, as it was only ever a comedy value tactic.

I think there is a bit more abiguity around the 'different' maledictions. The line on p68 could be read either way as highlighted by Super Ready - without an FAQ it's open to interpretation.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
This is my interpretation of 'Different' in regards to Maledictions stacking:

Gift of Contagion (CSM) is a malediction.

Enfeeble is a malediction.

Gift of Contagion + Enfeeble DO stack as they are different maledictions.

Enfeeble + Enfeeble DO NOT stack as they are the same malediction. i.e. not different.

Edit: As for reducing characteristics below 1, the malediction section (pg 68) forbids this.

This is my understanding as well. If they meant that all maledictions always stack, there would be no need for word 'different.'

we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

tgf wrote:
we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

 DeathReaper wrote:

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

That doesn't matter. If we go by interpretation that different instances of same malediction are different maledictions, certainly it does not matter whether they were cast by the same person or not? Nowhere in the rules it says: 'maledictions by different casters' merely 'different maledictions.'

 DeathReaper wrote:

tgf wrote:
we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

Except Eldrad couldn't actually take any powers that would actually "stack" so that argument doesn't make much sense.

Darkwater wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

tgf wrote:
we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

Except Eldrad couldn't actually take any powers that would actually "stack" so that argument doesn't make much sense.

I was pointing out that his claim was false as there clearly was a "situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster."

so you were pointing out a false assertion with a made up one...

tgf wrote:
so you were pointing out a false assertion with a made up one...

It is not made up...

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

Is a true statement.

There was a "situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster." before the Eldar book came out last week...

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
BRB pg 68: 'Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, . .'

Note that it specifies DIFFERENT maledictions.

exactly, DIFFERENT maledictions stack, not identical ones.

and the arguement that a different caster casting the same spell makes the same spell different is complete fallacy.


takes a lot of streches of the imagination to say "enfeeble is a different malediction from enfeeble"

you can ASSUME that identical meledictions/blessings stack, but that is not being given explicit permission.

in the cases where identical spells do stack, like in the chaos codex, it is specifically stated that they do stack with themselves in their own specific rules.

Different Maledictions stack. Maledictions from different psykers are different, as they require separate psychic checks. They can stack, but may not debuff any characteristic below 1.

Saying separate Maledictions are the same is like saying two meltaguns are the same.

There is nothing in any of the books saying that they can't stack, and there is a rule saying Maledictions do stack. RAW there is no rule whatsoever to indicate they don't. If your group makes an agreement fine, but there is no RAW support that they don't stack. I have stacked Enfeeble in two seperate GTs, and both times the judge has agreed. I have also done it in multiple RTTs, and never had it ruled against me.

 jifel wrote:
Different Maledictions stack. Maledictions from different psykers are different, as they require separate psychic checks.

No they aren't.

they are only "different" because you want them to be, two melta guns are the same weapon, albeit two separate instances of the same weapon.

a different caster, casting the same power, is still the same identical power,

it is just a separate casting of an identical power,

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Different Maledictions stack. Maledictions from different psykers are different, as they require separate psychic checks.

No they aren't.

Compelling argument there. Even if you are correct, (which I disagree with) there is no rule saying that the same Malediction doesn't stack. RAW they stack, until an FAQ is issued.

Ok, so here is my American English framed view on this question.

Some are arguing that different means different named etc....

To analogize this: how many steaks would I have on a plate if I had two identical 8oz ribeye steaks? Two correct? Now if I was told I could stack different steaks, would I then have one or two steaks stacked on my plate in the above case?

I think my point is that as, hopefully, I have demonstrated, the requirement of having two different steaks... Errr stacks sorry.... Is fulfilled by having two seperate steaks regardless of whether they are catagorically identical.

I mean if you asked some one to bring you two different steaks how could you be angry if you brought two steaks like i said previously? You didn't qualify your request by defining further what you meant by different, I.e. flavored, cooking level, cut etc..., and therefore the letter of your request was met.

My .02

If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one of them removes any reason for the rule to exist, that one is most likely wrong.

Is efeeble always enfeeble? If yes, then it is always the same as enfeeble. The rules give permission for different maledictions to stack. Maledictions that are not different do not recieve permission to stack.

If the arguement is that it is different because it is cast by a different source, then no malediction would be capable of being in any state but 'different.' If no malediction is capable of being different, the rule has no reason to exist and effects no part of the game. If such is the case, that interpretation is wrong.

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

Weird metaphor, but it works! Its really like having two Marines with Meltaguns. You don't need to have permission to try to shoot two seperate meltas at the same Carnifex. Of course they stack! Nothing says they dont. Enfeebles the same way. Nothing says they dont stack. They even tried to clarify it and people don't accept it.

EDIT:

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

 jifel wrote:
Weird metaphor, but it works! Its really like having two Marines with Meltaguns. You don't need to have permission to try to shoot two seperate meltas at the same Carnifex. Of course they stack! Nothing says they dont. Enfeebles the same way. Nothing says they dont stack. They even tried to clarify it and people don't accept it.

EDIT:

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

melta guns dont stack, they have two separate effects,

if they did stack it would b str 16,

totally differnt

if enfeeble is a different spell then enfeeble, simply because it has been cast in a separate instance,

then your pysker can cast enfeeble twice, because the restriction on pyskers casting the "same" power twice does not apply, because its a 2nd casting and hence "different" in your mind.

cant have it both ways and say they are the same power for the purposes of pyskers not being able to cast them 2x, and different powers for the purposes of stacking.

by your interpretation, one pyker can cast enfeeble twice, because the 2nd casting is a "different" power

 jifel wrote:

They are from different psykers.

So what?

I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

If all maledictions would stack, it would say that. It doesn't. It says different maledictions stack.

 Crimson wrote:
If all maledictions would stack, it would say that. It doesn't. It says different maledictions stack.

I enfeeble you. You suffer -1T.
I use that nurgle power on yuo. You're supposed to suffer -1T. You're already suffering -1T from the Enfeeble. Do they stack? Oh, the rule says they do.

I have permission to cast a second Enfeeble.
I have permission to apply the effect (assuming I passed the test and you failed to deny).
Find denial of that permission. Permission for different ones to stack is not denial for same ones to stack.

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

Permissive rules set. You are given permission for different meledictions to stack. No where is it given permission for the same ones to stack, therefore, only different meledictions may stack.

cryhavok wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

Permissive rules set. You are given permission for different meledictions to stack. No where is it given permission for the same ones to stack, therefore, only different meledictions may stack.

Incorrect. We have permission to cast the power. We have permission to resolve the power. Find the denial.

There's nothing to say they don't stack. And you can't use the same power twice from the same psyker because its from the same model, and there's a rule saying you can't. There's nothing saying you can't use the same power against the same model. You CAN use it if it is from a DIFFERENT psyker, thereby making it a different psychic power.

I believe it is a different power, but lets play your game, and pretend they are "the same". There is a specific rule saying that a model (or unit) can't cast the power twice. There is no rule saying that a model (or unit) can't receive a malediction twice. If they'd meant for that to be a rule, they'd have said so. There is permission for two different psykers to cast the same power regardless of target. There in no rule in the BRB saying they can't both target the same unit. And, if they do target the same unit, there is NOTHING to say they don't stack. It really is that simple. The rules allow me to do this. The rules don't say I can't do this. Therefore, I am going to do this.

 jifel wrote:
You CAN use it if it is from a DIFFERENT psyker, thereby making it a different psychic power.

Why you keep saying this? It makes no sense whatsoever? By whom it was cast has absolutely no bearing on this.

Also, I have two Rhinos equipped with hunter killer missiles. Do these Rhinos have same or different vehicle upgrade?

"Different mledictions stack" does not logically mean "same maledictions do not stack".

Permissions are granted to expend warp charge and resolve powers without any check or restriction on existing maledictions.

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:
You CAN use it if it is from a DIFFERENT psyker, thereby making it a different psychic power.

Why you keep saying this? It makes no sense whatsoever? By whom it was cast has absolutely no bearing on this.

Also, I have two Rhinos equipped with hunter killer missiles. Do these Rhinos have same or different vehicle upgrade?

I keep saying this, because it was previously said that a rule says psykers cant use the same power twice, and they tried to bring that over to this.

If you have two Rhinos with HKs, then you have the same upgrade on different units. And you can use this same upgrade against the same target, and the effects will stack.


Just a note, how many times have we had this thread?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
"Different maledictions stack" does not logically mean "same maledictions do not stack".

Yes, it does, unless you are a WAAC rules-lawyer. If they meant all maledictions to stack, it would just say that maledictions stack, period.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/527208.page

This has really already been covered here...

Iranna.

 Crimson wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
"Different maledictions stack" does not logically mean "same maledictions do not stack".

Yes, it does, unless you are a WAAC rules-lawyer. If they meant all maledictions to stack, it would just say that maledictions stack, period.

This makes no sense. Its not "rules-lawyering" and "WAAC" to play by the rules given in the book, and to not play by the rules not given by the book. If you want to try to enforce rules on me that aren't written in the book, then I can start making up rules too! If it gets FAQed then end of story, fine, but as it is, there is no rule in the book. When there is no rule, you can't make me play that way. Calling someone "WAAC" instead of attacking their actual point is a logical fallacy. Whether or not any player is WAAC or a douchebag or whatever, doesn't change how valid their argument is. His argument is valid.

EDIT: Thank you Iranna. A note is in that thread, it was voted to stack 61% of the time, compared to 39% against. However, it is unlikely any of us will change the others mind before an FAQ. Until then I advise we all play it our way and check with an opponent, or a TO, ahead of time.

The denial is inherent to the powers. Is a model effected by "enfeeble" malediction? Yes - Read the rules to see what it's effect is.

Nothing in the rule book states that you make the logical jump that 2x malediction equal 2x the effect. The book tells you that different malediction stack, thus allowing you to add the effects from two difference maledictions that effect the same stat. Nothing in the book states that two of the same malediction are meant to be a cumulative effect.

 jifel wrote:

I keep saying this, because it was previously said that a rule says psykers cant use the same power twice, and they tried to bring that over to this.

Yes, and it was perfect example why your interpretation has to be wrong. If two instances of the same power are different powers, then they're different regardless of they were cast by same or different person. Your notion that having a different caster affects this is based on absolutely nothing.

If you have two Rhinos with HKs, then you have the same upgrade on different units. And you can use this same upgrade against the same target, and the effects will stack.

So they're same and not different, even though they're on different vehicles? Just like two enfeebles are same and not different? And there are clear rules how multiple weapons or units firing works, so that has nothing to do with stacking.

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:

I keep saying this, because it was previously said that a rule says psykers cant use the same power twice, and they tried to bring that over to this.

Yes, and it was perfect example why your interpretation has to be wrong. If two instances of the same power are different powers, then they're different regardless of they were cast by same or different person. Your notion that having a different caster affects this is based on absolutely nothing.

If you have two Rhinos with HKs, then you have the same upgrade on different units. And you can use this same upgrade against the same target, and the effects will stack.

So they're same and not different, even though they're on different vehicles? Just like two enfeebles are same and not different? And there are clear rules how multiple weapons or units firing works, so that has nothing to do with stacking.

Sigh... Alright. I was hoping we could both back down, only an FAQ will end this, and there has been multiple wasted threads on the subject, but lets keep dancing.

Someone said a psyker can't use the same power twice, which is in the BRB. They believe this means that using a power twice makes it "the same" due to this wording in a separate part of the book. However, this is frankly irrelevant. Even if the power is the same, it can still be used. There is no rule disallowing any power from hitting a unit twice. But, I believe it is different, because it originates from a different psyker.
Follow? Ok, next.

The Hunter Killers on the Rhinos. It is the same wargear for rules purposes due to having the same rules. However, on the tabletop, these two Missiles are different, because they are from different Rhinos. The RUles specifically allow these two Missiles to fire wherever they want, and nothing bars them from targeting the same unit. Two Enffebles are both allowed to target any enemy unit, and nothing bars them from targeting the same unit. Once they do target the same unit, there is nothing that prevents the effects from stacking.

If two castings of the same malediction are different, and therefore stack, then it is not possible to have anything other than different maledictions. If only different maledictions can exist, the sentence from the brb that states, "different maledictions may stack" serves no purpose, and has no relevancy. If you're interpretation of a rule invalidates a rule, and another interpretation does not, then the one with the conflict is the wrong interpretation.

If the rulebook said "ONLY different powers stack", then and only then would that rule affect the same power stacking. We can argue intent all day. If they really wanted to make it the way some people here seem to want it the rule would read "Only powers with different names may stack."

They could've wrote "Dogs make good pets." That doesn't mean a cat cannot make a good pet, nor would it have any effect on the rules.

They only thing the current rule does is give permission, unnecessarily, for different powers to stack. The statement does not deny permission for anything.

We can't ASSUME intent. It would be nice if GW stated their intentions for us but they don't, except in FAQs. And until they decide to clarify things down the road we have to assume they wrote the things the way they did on purpose.

 jifel wrote:

Someone said a psyker can't use the same power twice, which is in the BRB. They believe this means that using a power twice makes it "the same" due to this wording in a separate part of the book.

That does not make it same. Being same makes it same, and being same prevents it being cast twice. And I say this third time: if different instances of Enfeeble were not same power, same psyker could cast multiple Enfeebles, because he would not be casting the same power twice.

However, this is frankly irrelevant. Even if the power is the same, it can still be used. There is no rule disallowing any power from hitting a unit twice.

Yes, it can hit. And the unit is affected by Enfeeble suffering -1 to S and T. That penalty does not change whether there were one or seven Enfeebles, just like multiple Endurances do not give you better FNP.

But, I believe it is different, because it originates from a different psyker.

And on what you base this?

Given that the chances of having multiple entities capable of casting enfeeble is rather remote I don't see why it'd be a very big deal.

 Kain wrote:
Given that the chances of having multiple entities capable of casting enfeeble is rather remote I don't see why it'd be a very big deal.

Broodlords can get it right?

Anywy, this is not so much about Enfeeble, as it is about maledictions in general. And new Eldar are in theory spamming quite massive amount of maledictions. With the Iyanden supplement they can have twenty psykers in single FOC.

I'd say this issue is relevant. Psyker Heavy armies (I use 6 at least, as a rule) can easily roll multiple Enfeebles, and I have before.

Many of the arguments presented here have some support at least, even if I may not agree. The one that baffles me is the argument that "same" psychic powers don't stack. As was so nicely put in a post above, if I say dogs are good pets, it doesn't make cats bad pets. To say so is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. Why do you think they wouldn't, other than that you don't want them too? Just because different powers stack doesn't make "same" ones not stack.

Endurance is a different case. It supplies FnP, and if I give it to a unit twice, then dangit the unit has two FnPs. However the rules only allow one FnP roll to be made, so having multiple FnP is redundant. Not to mention, modifiers and special rules are different things. Modifiers stack, as can be shown by a unit with multiple Hammerhands. If a Libby in a terminator squad both get HH, they get +1 strength twice. Why can I not give them -1 strength twice?

I cast enfeeble. You are now at -1T

I cast enfeeble from another source. Find where you are now NOT -1 (-1)T, but only _1T. Page and para

Actual rules, not insults of being WAAC ruleslwayers please

"The target suffers -1 Strength and Toughness while the power is in effect..."
Enfeeble, BRB

"...the unit have +1 strength until the end of the assault phase..."
Hammerhand, Codex: Grey Knights

Hammerhand provides a clear example of why Enfeeble stacks. It provides a modifier to a basic model statistic. There were arguments on whether it stacked. Then, an FAQ came down, and ruled that it stacked if separate models cast Hammerhand. Likewise, Enfeeble modifies a basic statistic. By using precedent from other rules, as instructed to do so by the BRB, Enfeeble stacks. Until it is over-ruled by an FAQ (possible in the future) or a a rule currently in the BRB (which doesn't exist, despite what you think the rule about different powers implies), it stacks RAW.

 BlueDagger wrote:
The denial is inherent to the powers. Is a model effected by "enfeeble" malediction? Yes - Read the rules to see what it's effect is.

-1T. Oh, you're already -1T because of another Enfeeble? -2T.
If you say it's still only -1, please cite a rule denying permission to resolve the second power.

Nothing in the rule book states that you make the logical jump that 2x malediction equal 2x the effect. The book tells you that different malediction stack, thus allowing you to add the effects from two difference maledictions that effect the same stat. Nothing in the book states that two of the same malediction are meant to be a cumulative effect.

Nothing aside from, I dunno, permission to cast and resolve the powers that is. That pesky little thing.

Later today when I have brb in from of me I'll find the permission/denial chain that supports my argument that two of the same maledictions do not stack. Until then I'll let what I have said stand, that an interpretation that invalidates a rule can not be the correct interpretation.

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:
You CAN use it if it is from a DIFFERENT psyker, thereby making it a different psychic power.

Why you keep saying this? It makes no sense whatsoever? By whom it was cast has absolutely no bearing on this.

Also, I have two Rhinos equipped with hunter killer missiles. Do these Rhinos have same or different vehicle upgrade?

I know, the whole argument is based on the premise that enfeeble is not the same power as enfeeble...


two different castings of the SAME power is still the same power, casting the same thing twice does not magically make the 2nd casting of the same spell some different spell. yes it is from a different caster, so what? its still the same power, and the restriction is on "different blessings/maledictions" not different CASTERS.

its another casting of the same power, its not a different "enfeeble" its a separate one, or I could just say that I picked this "enfeeble" from my sRB, and that "enfeeble" from my BRB and thusly one psyker can cast these two different powers twice himself.

the whole argument for stacking is that enfeeble is not the same power as enfeeble, because, you know, I have it on two guys.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nothing aside from, I dunno, permission to cast and resolve the powers that is. That pesky little thing.

Of course you have permission to resolve it, however, if it can't stack, then, like a psychic shooting attack that fails to wound, it's resolution would be to have no impact whatsoever. Just because it does nothing, does not mean it didn't resolve. So that doesn't counter the argument at all.

cryhavok wrote:
an interpretation that invalidates a rule can not be the correct interpretation.

What rule is invalidated?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Nothing aside from, I dunno, permission to cast and resolve the powers that is. That pesky little thing.

Of course you have permission to resolve it, however, if it can't stack, then, like a psychic shooting attack that fails to wound, it's resolution would be to have no impact whatsoever. Just because it does nothing, does not mean it didn't resolve. So that doesn't counter the argument at all.

A psychic attack that fails to wound has a rule that stops it from doing anything - it failed to wound.
Cite a rule that causes a malediction to do nothing, assuming the test passes and the DtW fails.

 easysauce wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:
You CAN use it if it is from a DIFFERENT psyker, thereby making it a different psychic power.

Why you keep saying this? It makes no sense whatsoever? By whom it was cast has absolutely no bearing on this.

Also, I have two Rhinos equipped with hunter killer missiles. Do these Rhinos have same or different vehicle upgrade?

I know, the whole argument is based on the premise that enfeeble is not the same power as enfeeble...


two different castings of the SAME power is still the same power, casting the same thing twice does not magically make the 2nd casting of the same spell some different spell. yes it is from a different caster, so what? its still the same power, and the restriction is on "different blessings/maledictions" not different CASTERS.

its another casting of the same power, its not a different "enfeeble" its a separate one, or I could just say that I picked this "enfeeble" from my sRB, and that "enfeeble" from my BRB and thusly one psyker can cast these two different powers twice himself.

the whole argument for stacking is that enfeeble is not the same power as enfeeble, because, you know, I have it on two guys.

And if it is, as you say, the same power, what then? The same power would stack too, as Maledictions are allowed to be resolved, and there is no rule stating that the same Malediction can't be resolved twice on the same target.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

Permissive rules set. You are given permission for different meledictions to stack. No where is it given permission for the same ones to stack, therefore, only different meledictions may stack.

Incorrect. We have permission to cast the power. We have permission to resolve the power. Find the denial.

Is it not the same as the rule that doesn't allow you to move through models? It's not explicitly stated "no" but the rules reference the fact.

The rule is that different maledictions are cumulative. This is not permission that the same ones stack nor is it a denial for it but since we go on permissive rules 2 enfeebles don't stack if you read maeledictions as the specific one since it's lower case and not Maledictions which usually GW use to refer to archetypes.


The wording isn't great, the rules are talking in general terms in that paragraph just like blessings but you have two choices. Read it as being a general restriction where different means different maledictions or as two different castings BUT I don't agree that it is different castings. That could have been worded clearer. Similarly does the power that requires a LD check to do anything in movement or shooting require a LD check for each time it's cast on a squad?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Is it not the same as the rule that doesn't allow you to move through models? It's not explicitly stated "no" but the rules reference the fact.

The rule is that different maledictions are cumulative. This is not permission that the same ones stack nor is it a denial for it but since we go on permissive rules 2 enfeebles don't stack.

You mean this rule?

BRB FAQ wrote:Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules.

Damn I keep forgetting they FAQ'd that.

For the people who claim that different powers stacking is not a reminder:

How do you determine if something is a reminder or a difference from the norm?

To all those saying that you can't stack the same "power" - check your wording. The rule is that you can stack different "maledictions". Noone can deny that two castings of enfeeble are the same power, but that still doesn't cover whether the rules see them as different maledictions. I refer again to the gaming term of "instances" to show how they could be seen as different.

 Super Ready wrote:
To all those saying that you can't stack the same "power" - check your wording. The rule is that you can stack different "maledictions". Noone can deny that two castings of enfeeble are the same power, but that still doesn't cover whether the rules see them as different maledictions. I refer again to the gaming term of "instances" to show how they could be seen as different.

thats all you need right there, its the same power. Playing with the wording, you OBS didnt read upper right of pg 68 where it specifically refers to powers "pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

you are not reading that part I assume, but thanks for accusing me of not reading

It is obviously referring to the powers themselves, not different castings of the same powers. Its word play and willfull ignorance of the permissive nature to assume this means that unless stated other wise all psychic powers stack.

because that is what you are saying, despite it not being in the rule book, is that all powers stack unless other wise noted.

the book is clearly referring to the maledictions/blessings themselves, it makes no hint at talking about instances of casting the same power making it a different power.

arguing that the exact power is different takes some gymnastics,

Its saying that if one psyker uses power A, then andother pysker uses power A, that power A is now not identical to power A is absurdity.

 easysauce wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
To all those saying that you can't stack the same "power" - check your wording. The rule is that you can stack different "maledictions". Noone can deny that two castings of enfeeble are the same power, but that still doesn't cover whether the rules see them as different maledictions. I refer again to the gaming term of "instances" to show how they could be seen as different.

thats all you need right there, its the same power. Playing with the wording, you OBS didnt read upper right of pg 68 where it specifically refers to powers "pg 68

So if you cast 3 enfeebles in a single turn, did you cast 3 Psy Power or 3 psy powers?

English, love it.

 Happyjew wrote:

You mean this rule?

BRB FAQ wrote:Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules.

Right, so the rules did not say you can't move through other models, but gave some models specific allowance to move though other models, thus implying that it is not normally allowed. This is the exact same thing, rules say which maledictions can stack, implying that they otherwise can't. That they clarified the movement matter in FAQ does not alter the rules themselves.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

You mean this rule?

BRB FAQ wrote:Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules.

Right, so the rules did not say you can't move through other models, but gave some models specific allowance to move though other models, thus implying that it is not normally allowed. This is the exact same thing, rules say which maledictions can stack, implying that they otherwise can't. That they clarified the movement matter in FAQ does not alter the rules themselves.

The fall back rules (I think) reference a non-existent rule - specifically that normally a model cannot move through another model's base. Generally with enemy models this was not an issue as except for charging you can not move within 1" of an enemy model. The FAQ clarifies that you cannot in fact move through friendly models. Jump Infantry and Jetbikes have the ability to move over other models.

In the case of psychic powers it is a case of people saying that A=B =>A!=B! which is not necessarily true.

It's the Exception that Proves the Rule. Being given a rule stating that different powers stack implies the existence of a rule that powers don't stack. Otherwise there'd be no need for the rule telling us different powers stack because all powers would stack, different or not.

Chrysis wrote:
It's the Exception that Proves the Rule. Being given a rule stating that different powers stack implies the existence of a rule that powers don't stack. Otherwise there'd be no need for the rule telling us different powers stack because all powers would stack, different or not.

So then what is the point in stating in the Drop Pod Assault rule (via the Dark Angels codex) that models arriving via Deep Strike by Drop Pod cannot assault the turn they arrive?

 Happyjew wrote:

So then what is the point in stating in the Drop Pod Assault rule (via the Dark Angels codex) that models arriving via Deep Strike by Drop Pod cannot assault the turn they arrive?

It has no purpose besides being a reminder. This is natural, it reminds us that the general rules well established in BRB apply to this unusual sort of vehicle as well. It is possible that they added this reminder because the drop pod rule is called 'Drop Pod Assault', and they wanted to clarify that despite the name it has nothing to do with assaulting. This is different from the psychic power rules by quite a bit. Those are general rules for psychic powers yet the sentence we argue over focuses on certain subset of situations (casting different psychic powers.) There is absolutely no reason to focus on that subset, unless they intend this rule (stacking) to apply only to that subset.

So when is a rule a reminder and not an implication of exception?
I've shown where permission is granted. Not a single person has been able to cite denial.

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:

Someone said a psyker can't use the same power twice, which is in the BRB. They believe this means that using a power twice makes it "the same" due to this wording in a separate part of the book.

That does not make it same. Being same makes it same, and being same prevents it being cast twice. And I say this third time: if different instances of Enfeeble were not same power, same psyker could cast multiple Enfeebles, because he would not be casting the same power twice.

This right here. Doesn't matter who casts it, its the same power, just a different instance of it.

If a unit is listed as Unique, you can't field multiples in the same army (ie, stack) per the BRB. By the pro-stacker logic, I could field multiples of the Unique unit because the models are different.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:

Someone said a psyker can't use the same power twice, which is in the BRB. They believe this means that using a power twice makes it "the same" due to this wording in a separate part of the book.

That does not make it same. Being same makes it same, and being same prevents it being cast twice. And I say this third time: if different instances of Enfeeble were not same power, same psyker could cast multiple Enfeebles, because he would not be casting the same power twice.

This right here. Doesn't matter who casts it, its the same power, just a different instance of it.

If a unit is listed as Unique, you can't field multiples in the same army (ie, stack) per the BRB. By the pro-stacker logic, I could field multiples of the Unique unit because the models are different.

Well, there is a specific rule saying that unique units may be taken once... There is NO rule saying that powers can't be cast twice on a unit.
And if they are the same, they would still RAW stack. Show me where it says they don't. I'm getting tired of this, so I'm checking out until you guys get some BRB proof that Maledictions, even if they are same, don't stack. Just because it is stated that Different powers stack doesn't suddenly validate the reverse that same powers don't.

Its been stated why they can, and I've provided a similar situation (Psychic Power Hammerhand), the books even SAY to refer to similar rules in case of a dispute. Until one of the anti-stackers can prove that same psychic powers don't stack, I'm going to stop wasting my time. With any luck there'll be an FAQ soon, and until then, every TO has ruled that they do stack.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:

Someone said a psyker can't use the same power twice, which is in the BRB. They believe this means that using a power twice makes it "the same" due to this wording in a separate part of the book.

That does not make it same. Being same makes it same, and being same prevents it being cast twice. And I say this third time: if different instances of Enfeeble were not same power, same psyker could cast multiple Enfeebles, because he would not be casting the same power twice.

This right here. Doesn't matter who casts it, its the same power, just a different instance of it.

If a unit is listed as Unique, you can't field multiples in the same army (ie, stack) per the BRB. By the pro-stacker logic, I could field multiples of the Unique unit because the models are different.

exactly... the 2nd psyker whos casts it is not casting a different power... he is taking the same rules for the same power and trying to cast it again.

the rule book is clearly talking about different powers, not different casters.

and while yes you can CAST the same power on a unit twice, or a power on a unit it wont effect, or shoot at a unit you cant hurt, that does not give you blanket permission to have an effect, nor is it blanket permission to stack. It is permission to cast only.

Seriously why are you guys arguing with yourselves? Different powers or not IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Fact is that ALL powers (unless otherwise stated in the power's rules) are cumulative under the rules as they are. If you successfully cast enfeeble twice (which currently can only be done with two different psykers, which has no bearing on this discussion) the unit gets -1 S and -1 T for the first enfeeble and then -1 S and -1 T again for the second. There is no rule in the book saying that this is illegal.

And this bit on pg 68 "...the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not affect the same power being cast on a unit at all.

 Tarrasq wrote:

And this bit on pg 68 "...the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not affect the same power being cast on a unit at all.

What is the purpose of this sentence then?

 Tarrasq wrote:
And this bit on pg 68 "...the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not affect the same power being cast on a unit at all.

UUhhmm... did you really just say that? Really? Really?

Anyway here is my permission chain:
permission is given to cast
it casts
it resolves
Permission is given for a second psyker to cast the same power
it casts
it resolves

All of this happens. Where the argument lies is what happens during that second resolution.
here are the two arguments as far as I can see:
-resolution checks to see if psychic powers are different from one already effecting unit
-yes-preceed to apply full effect
-no-power resolves, but has no additional effect

vs

-resolution checks to see if psychic powers are different from one already effecting unit
-psychic powers can not be defined as the same, and are therefore all different.
-power resolves to full effect in addition to all powers currently effecting unit.

You can give me all the puppy analalogies you want, but the fact is, pretty much every word in the english language has multiple deffinitions, and almost every sentence that can be said, can be interpretted multiple ways. You can tell what someoen means by the context they use. If you find that there are multiple meanings to something, you use context to find the meaning that fits the situation and doesn't conflict with anything else the person says. The rules say that different powers stack. It says it once in the section of resolving psychic powers, and repeats it twice in the blessings section, and the maledictions sections. It is clear that powers that are not different do not have the same permission that different powers are given. So it really comes down to the word different.

We have one argument that says basically (without the legalese) that if a power is otherwise identical, it is the same power. This interpretation has no conflict with any part of the rules. Then we have a second argument that any additional casting of an otherwise identical power is different. This argument has a conflict with the rules, because it basically makes all powers different, removing the purpose the the rule stating that different powers are cumulative. The ruels do not define thier use of the word different, so we are left with context to figure it out. One has a conflict with the rules, the other does not.

Now while context rules here for me, that could be said to be RAI, not RAW, which I am fine with, that matters more to me that RAW. (as a note, my possition is that anyone wanting stacking powers should be rolling thier dice against me before they even finish the sentence claiming they do, at least until GW gets off thier collective bums and FAQs this)

As far as raw goes here is this:
Page 2 of the BRB implies permission for rules and wargear to stack bonuses, unless otherwise stated
Page 68 of the BRB gives permission for different psychic powers to stack

So other than the definition of different, does enfeeble(or any other specific psychic power) count as a rule? I know for sure it is not wargear. If its is not then a power that is not different never recieves permission to be cumulative.

Also I am curious, what do most TO's rule on this? In my area the TO's pretty much universally say they do not, but I am wondering about other areas, especially the big GW tourneys, as, like RAI, the TO's rulling will have more effect on me than the opinion of some random dakka user that I will never meet of play with.

 easysauce wrote:
thats all you need right there, its the same power. Playing with the wording, you OBS didnt read upper right of pg 68 where it specifically refers to powers "pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

you are not reading that part I assume, but thanks for accusing me of not reading

It is obviously referring to the powers themselves, not different castings of the same powers. Its word play and willfull ignorance of the permissive nature to assume this means that unless stated other wise all psychic powers stack.

I'm not playing with the wording - I'm just interpreting it differently from you. Bear in mind your interpretation is not automatically correct.
Again, the rule doesn't say powers - it says maledictions. You say that if enfeeble is cast on a unit from two different sources, the same malediction has been cast twice. I say two maledictions have been cast that use the same power.
Unfortunately, the rulebook's wording doesn't fully support either of us.

...I do agree with the other argument though, that stacking isn't actually denied anywhere.

 Super Ready wrote:

Again, the rule doesn't say powers - it says maledictions. You say that if enfeeble is cast on a unit from two different sources, the same malediction has been cast twice. I say two maledictions have been cast that use the same power.
Unfortunately, the rulebook's wording doesn't fully support either of us.

...I do agree with the other argument though, that stacking isn't actually denied anywhere.

It does actually say "psychic powers." Page 68, last sentence of "Resolve Psychic Power."

It also says "blessings" under Blessings, and "maledictions" under Maledictions. So they've covered that different Powers stack 3 times, in three different sentences. They have not once done it without using the word different.

Again: how do you know a reminder from a rule?

Find a rule stating they do not stack, and you would have an argument. Currently you are committing a logical fallacy to create a rule out of thin air.

Currently the rule acts as a reminder. Pure and simple. Find denial of the ability to stack, given the permission given to cast and resolve powers is already in existence, or concede you have no RAW argument.

From a strict, logical RAW point of view, I will concede that the permission to stack different powers does not, explicitly, deny the opposite.

However, the mere mention of 'different' in the rules, given the context, implies that the opposite is NOT allowed. Otherwise the various rules referencing 'different' powers would be redundant.

To paraphrase another poster: 'If there are two interpretations of a rule, and one interpretation makes the rule redundant, the other, logically, is correct.'

I believe the intent of the rule is crystal clear: Different powers MAY stack, Same powers MAY NOT.

To paraphrase another poster: 'If there are two interpretations of a rule, and one interpretation makes the rule redundant, the other, logically, is correct.'

There are literally hundreds of cases where rules are redundant.GW often writes redundant rules to help explain current ones or clarify current rules. So this argument is inherently flawed. The stacking rule seems to be a case of clarifying multiple different instances of Maledictions stack.

To utilise your own argument when the book was released there were not multiple maledictions that effected the same stat. So the rule did nothing in your interpretation...

I have 2 meltaguns I shoot them both and a Carnifex and they both cause an un saved wound. Do they stack such that the Carnifex has taken 2 wounds or has he just suffered 1 wound because two different meltaguns are the same meltagun.

Dra'al - how do you know it isnt a reminder, like the other dozen or so reminders littered throughout the books?

Prove it is a new rule, and not a reminder, and then you have an argument. Or, prove that powers are restricted from stacking. Until that is done there is no argument.

Stacking is not the correct word. Stacking and Cumulative are different, Cumulative and applying an effect twice are different. These three words can be applied and mean totally different outcomes.


I can 'stack' an effect, but this does not automatically imply the effect is cumulative, ‘stacking’ implies the use of layers. I could argue I can affect a unit twice with Enfeeble; but then they only suffer a -1 penalty as the second application is satisfied by the penalties applied from the first.

If we agree the second application is not satisfied by the first, without permission for accumulation we are then applying the effect twice.

If I 'apply the effect twice', we are in the remit of resolving each effect as separate instances, both outcomes of the effect should be resolved. This then renders the consensus of the recent thread ' Multiple Dominates' incorrect.

Cumulative benefits and penalties is when I apply an effect, and subsequent effects alter the value of the modifier that is eventually applied. Think of it instead of being affected by Enfeeble x2, you are affected with Enfeeble, and suffer a -2 penalty

The missing magical word;
We never actually assume an ability or mechanics are cumulative in the rules. We are usually given an indication. We do not normally stack mechanics which do not indicate this, no matter how many times we could apply it.
The most basic indication GW gives in the text of an ability is the word ‘Each’. For each.... I've been meaning to look up as many cases as I can for a while now, but have been a bit lazy. But it is the lack of the wording withing PP of 'for each...' and the lack of permission to cumulate PP effects which keeps me on the sidelines. Please note while the use of 'each' is prominent, it is by no means consistant.

I have 2 meltaguns I shoot them both and a Carnifex and they both cause an un saved wound. Do they stack such that the Carnifex has taken 2 wounds or has he just suffered 1 wound because two different meltaguns are the same meltagun.

This is a bad argument as you are clearly directed that each wound from the wound pool can be applied, and you are instructed on exactly how to do this, additionally there is no rule on shooting stating 'different' does not stack.

additionally there is no rule on shooting stating 'different' does not stack.

Nor is there for psychic powers...

 FlingitNow wrote:

additionally there is no rule on shooting stating 'different' does not stack.

Nor is there for psychic powers...

Ahah, nah you got me that part was irrelevant, the point for that section is, Hits and wounds we are directed on how to treat multiples of, In much detail.
Unfortunately this is not mirrored in the PP's section, not even a hint of detail.

The summary of the rest of the post would be the ability to have the same effect active, does not confer this is then cumulative without direction.

Domninate and enfeeble have very different wording. Dominate has wording similar to Waagh banners - no matter how many you have you are +1Ws.

Enfeeble, hammerhand etc have no such wording, and so when you apply one power you apply it to the current stat, not the "base" one

To cast in my 2c, I ran a poll on this topic and over 2/3 of the votes said that multiple enfeebles (and other duplicate maledictions or blessings) do stack. I realize majority rule isn't right, but the general consensus is usually accurate.

If anyone is keeping score, I'm on the side of enfeeble does not stack with enfeeble.

Any actual rules? This same thread has come and gone and been locked in the past. No new rules have addressed the topic unless you know something we don't.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" does not stop same maledictions from being cumulative.

ok, lets add in special rules, pg 32."the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"

So if I have a unit with stealth, and 2 IC with stealth join it, is that 3 different instances of stealth so they stack? ie 4+ cover save in the open. lets even say one is granted from wargear, the unit just has the rule, and the 3rd is from a psychic power.

The others who have made the case for the same psychic powers make a better case.

 hyv3mynd wrote:


"Different maledictions are cumulative" does not stop same maledictions from being cumulative.

And why you think that sentence is there then?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Any actual rules? This same thread has come and gone and been locked in the past. No new rules have addressed the topic unless you know something we don't.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" does not stop same maledictions from being cumulative.

it does not need to "stop" anything, its not permission to stack the same power, and thats all thats needed.

you have no permissionto stack the same power, hence you cannot

you have explicit permission to stack different powers, hence you can

you only do what the rules say you can do, you are not allowed to do anything just because the rules do not mention you cannot.

 Crimson wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:


"Different maledictions are cumulative" does not stop same maledictions from being cumulative.

And why you think that sentence is there then?

Why does not matter. That would bring intent into a RAW discussion.

You have permission to use enfeeble with a psyker and resolve it. You have permission to use it with a different psyker and resolve it. That's your permission and nothing restricts it unless you have an actual rules quote to share.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Why does not matter. That would bring intent into a RAW discussion.

You have permission to use enfeeble with a psyker and resolve it. You have permission to use it with a different psyker and resolve it. That's your permission and nothing restricts it unless you have an actual rules quote to share.

So you actually agree that the intent is that the same power does not stack, but you decide to rules-lawyer to gain an advantage anyway? Okay then, as long as that is clear.

No I don't agree. I believe the statement is a reminder. No part of the statement is restrictive or denying permissions to use maledictions.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No I don't agree. I believe the statement is a reminder.

Reminder of what? Why the hell would there be a reminder in general psychic power rules that specifically different maledictions stack? Being a reminder would require that there was a more general rule mentioned someplace else. There isn't.

Like I said, when you ask why you're getting into intent. These discussions are about RAW.

RAW allows using and resolving multiple maledictions without any restriction. If you want to discuss RAI, per the previous poll 65% of participants agree that they stack.

again permission to cast and resolve is not permission to be cumulative,

very different things.

Stop equating the two incorectly, that is not RAW, RAW is you get to cast, reseolve, and that is it! you can cast and reseolve the same powere on the same unit twice, that does not mean it stacks.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Given that the chances of having multiple entities capable of casting enfeeble is rather remote I don't see why it'd be a very big deal.

Broodlords can get it right?

Anywy, this is not so much about Enfeeble, as it is about maledictions in general. And new Eldar are in theory spamming quite massive amount of maledictions. With the Iyanden supplement they can have twenty psykers in single FOC.

The theoretical most a Tyranid player, the primary biomancy spammers in the game, could have would be 12 (assuming double FOC) from broodlords and tervigons in troops, 18 from Zoanthropes, and four from hive tyrants. So 34.

At most you have about 8+9+9+36 chances to roll so 62, 64 in case one of the Tyrants is a swarmlord.

And even then, you won't be getting enfeeble that much on that many units. Although notably enfeeble makes the normally useless haemorrage terrifying if used in tandem.

But at this "why don't you just play apoc?" level scale, less than a dozen units with enfeeble aren't going to be quite as wow inducing due to the sheer number of units on the table.

 easysauce wrote:
again permission to cast and resolve is not permission to be cumulative,

very different things.

Stop equating the two incorectly, that is not RAW, RAW is you get to cast, reseolve, and that is it! you can cast and reseolve the same powere on the same unit twice, that does not mean it stacks.

Sure it does. You haven't resolved 2 enfeebles if you haven't stacked them. Do you have any rules to quote stating the resolving and stacking are separate steps with differing restrictions?

well if you are going to continue to equate resolve= stack there is no point in continueing.

plenty of powers are resovled on targets to no(additional) effect.

there is nothing in the rulebook that equates resolving a power to it stacking.

 easysauce wrote:
well if you are going to continue to equate resolve= stack there is no point in continueing.

plenty of powers are resovled on targets to no(additional) effect.

there is nothing in the rulebook that equates resolving a power to it stacking.

The "plenty of powers with no additional effect" are worded in such a way. Just like multiple instances of IWND do not let you roll more dice. Multiple instances of FnP do not improve each other.

Multiple instances of -1T lead to -2T, -3T etc.

 easysauce wrote:
well if you are going to continue to equate resolve= stack there is no point in continueing.

plenty of powers are resovled on targets to no(additional) effect.

there is nothing in the rulebook that equates resolving a power to it stacking.

So what is 4-1-1? If you think it is 2 then we're on the same page. At the moment your argument seems to hinge on this not being the case.

If you're T4 and I cast enfeeble on you are you now T3?

If you are T3 and I cast enfeeble on you what toughness are you?

How do you resolve enfeeble on a model WITHOUT reducing its toughness?

sirlynchmob wrote:
ok, lets add in special rules, pg 32."the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"

So if I have a unit with stealth, and 2 IC with stealth join it, is that 3 different instances of stealth so they stack? ie 4+ cover save in the open. lets even say one is granted from wargear, the unit just has the rule, and the 3rd is from a psychic power.

The others who have made the case for the same psychic powers make a better case.

If you have 2 instances of stealth, then you have Stealth X2.

Stealth says "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being I point better than normal."

so if you have stealth on two, or 5 or 30 guys in the unit, you have " at least one model with this special rule" and you improve the cover by 1.

Enfeeble, however, is worded very differently so your example has nothing to do with the discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
ok, lets add in special rules, pg 32."the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"

So if I have a unit with stealth, and 2 IC with stealth join it, is that 3 different instances of stealth so they stack? ie 4+ cover save in the open. lets even say one is granted from wargear, the unit just has the rule, and the 3rd is from a psychic power.

The others who have made the case for the same psychic powers make a better case.

If you have 2 instances of stealth, then you have Stealth X2.

Stealth says "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being I point better than normal."

so if you have stealth on two, or 5 or 30 guys in the unit, you have " at least one model with this special rule" and you improve the cover by 1.

Enfeeble, however, is worded very differently so your example has nothing to do with the discussion.

Sure it does, it helps highlight when GW says different abilities stack, they are talking about the actual different named abilities. Two enfeebles are not cumulative.

Hey, but since it treats open terrain as difficult terrain, if you're enfeebled you should be able to WMS upwards when you move right? then run up again and possible levitate 1' over the table. Then you'd never be able to assault the unit unless you were enfeebled as well

They do not stack (really, it should be "They are not cumulative" The argument is not stack/doesn't stack. It's cumulative/concurrent).

There are two interpretations available here. The first is that so long as the target is at -1 S/T, the conditions of Enfeeble are satisfied, no matter how many times it has been cast (concurrent). The second is that each instance of Enfeeble first checks what the current condition of the model is, and then applies its effects (cumulative). The second one makes the statement that "multiple different maledictions are always cumulative" meaningless, and thus should be avoided if possible.

How this works is that while the power is in effect, the model is at -1 S/T. If the model was originally S5/T5, and is now S4/T4, each instance of Enfeeble will be satisfied. The first one will check and say, "Yep, it's -1 S/T." Then the second one checks and says "Yep, it's -1 S/T." This is why it is necessary to state that different powers do are cumulative, or two different powers, such as Iron Arm and Might of Titan, wouldn't be cumulative, because as long as the target was +1 S from Iron Arm, Might of Titan would be satisfied. The power does not say that when it is cast, the target's S/T are reduced by one. That wording would be implicitly cumulative.

To provide an example, imagine I ask you 7 times in a row if you have five dollars in your pocket. If you show me the same five dollar bill seven times, you have satisfied the conditions. You do not have to show me thirty-five dollars. Or for an example from a game with significantly better-written rules; if you tap a permanent in MTG 30 times it is still just tapped, and it still only needs one "untap" spell or step to untap it.

So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

rigeld2 wrote:
So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

Stop throwing poor straw men in there.

There is one question and one only. Does different mean different powers or different castings? That is all and there is nobody that can give a good answer, it is down to how you read it.
Nobody can show it's clearly a reminder nor can anyone show clear RAW that the same power cast twice can stack.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

Stop throwing poor straw men in there.

It's not a poor straw man.
I missed that he addressed that - but now he's saying that Hammerhand breaks 2 rules instead of 1.
I think he's misreading, but that is what he's saying.

I don't agree with that either. I think this is down to reading and needs an FAQ to clear it up or there will be psyker heavy armies out there that will be subject to the whim of a TO's call on this sort of thing.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Sure it does, it helps highlight when GW says different abilities stack, they are talking about the actual different named abilities. Two enfeebles are not cumulative.

Hey, but since it treats open terrain as difficult terrain, if you're enfeebled you should be able to WMS upwards when you move right? then run up again and possible levitate 1' over the table. Then you'd never be able to assault the unit unless you were enfeebled as well

Levitating over the table is not terrain unless you are under a Skyshield landing pad, so that example falls short as well.

The reason the Multiple stealth's has no bearing is because of the way Stealth is worded, which is entirely different from how enfeeble is worded.

Stealth says if one or more models has this rule apply its effect. Enfeeble is not worded like that at all.

It does not help highlight anything as the two abilities are 100% different.

jifel wrote: if I say dogs are good pets, it doesn't make cats bad pets.

Cats are not the exact opposite of dogs unlike different and same.

Tarrasq wrote:
And this bit on pg 68 "...the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not affect the same power being cast on a unit at all.

You are correct, this only effects different psychic powers not 'same' psychic powers. It permits them to accumulate. What permits the same multiple powers to accumulate? Resolution does not, that only allows the power to become an effect, if those effects are not cumulative, their number does not matter.

easysauce wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Any actual rules? This same thread has come and gone and been locked in the past. No new rules have addressed the topic unless you know something we don't.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" does not stop same maledictions from being cumulative.

it does not need to "stop" anything, its not permission to stack the same power, and thats all thats needed.

you have no permissionto stack the same power, hence you cannot

you have explicit permission to stack different powers, hence you can

you only do what the rules say you can do, you are not allowed to do anything just because the rules do not mention you cannot.

Agreed. They would have to start being cumulative in order to stop. This is a backwards way to look at it. GW has added 'cumulative' status to 'different' powers. This alone creates a distinction between 'same and different powers' and 'non-cumulative and cumulative powers'.

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

Stop throwing poor straw men in there.

There is one question and one only. Does different mean different powers or different castings? That is all and there is nobody that can give a good answer, it is down to how you read it.
Nobody can show it's clearly a reminder nor can anyone show clear RAW that the same power cast twice can stack.

While different is not strictly defined its opposite is somewhat when the BRB says "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn". This I believe is generally taken to mean that it cannot use a psychic power of the same name twice, which roughly defines what a 'same psychic power' is unless someone wants to continue arguing that every casting is different so this rule means nothing, in which case I'd wish them luck.

liturgies of blood wrote:I don't agree with that either. I think this is down to reading and needs an FAQ to clear it up or there will be psyker heavy armies out there that will be subject to the whim of a TO's call on this sort of thing.

This also^^^

After rereading enfeeble I think I may have to change my opinion, at least for that particular power. The clause "Whilst the power is in effect..." leads me to believe that multiple instances of that particular power would not be cumulative. First off, congrats GW for fitting "whilst" in there nicely. This condition implies that adding another instance of the same power on the same unit would not mean that a new power is in effect, therefore you'd have the same result. However if that clause was dropped I would have no problem thinking that multiple enfeebles would be cumulative.

I guess it really does come down to whether you think "the power" refers to that particular instance of the power or all instances of it.

Liturgies - it isnt down to reading, at all. The reminder that different powers stack is just that - a reminder. It does not define a new rule, at all.

You reduce T4 to T3
You cast enfgeeble again. Find the restriction that stops that unit becoming T2. Page and graph. Refusal to provide a rule will be treated as concession that there is no rules argument.

 Kain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Given that the chances of having multiple entities capable of casting enfeeble is rather remote I don't see why it'd be a very big deal.

Broodlords can get it right?

Anywy, this is not so much about Enfeeble, as it is about maledictions in general. And new Eldar are in theory spamming quite massive amount of maledictions. With the Iyanden supplement they can have twenty psykers in single FOC.

The theoretical most a Tyranid player, the primary biomancy spammers in the game, could have would be 12 (assuming double FOC) from broodlords and tervigons in troops, 18 from Zoanthropes, and four from hive tyrants. So 34.

At most you have about 8+9+9+36 chances to roll so 62, 64 in case one of the Tyrants is a swarmlord.

And even then, you won't be getting enfeeble that much on that many units. Although notably enfeeble makes the normally useless haemorrage terrifying if used in tandem.

But at this "why don't you just play apoc?" level scale, less than a dozen units with enfeeble aren't going to be quite as wow inducing due to the sheer number of units on the table.

Actually, Daemons can potentially spam a lot of biomancy even on a single FOC. The reason I asked was I'm thinking of running a psyker heavy flying circus list with daemon princes. 3 Daemon Princes with Lvl 3 psych all rolling on Biomancy has quite a good chance of having more than one enfeeble, and I wanted to know if it would stack. I didn't realise I was getting into such a controversial area; as others have noted whilst it's probably not a common worry with enfeeble (and hence never been FAQ'd) it looks like it's much more of an issue with the new Eldar codex.

Actually, as a comedy list using double FoC, I think you could technically have 16 Heralds of Nurgle, all with level three psych rolling on Biomancy. That's a lot of potential enfeebles

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The reminder that different powers stack is just that - a reminder. It does not define a new rule, at all.

I ask this again, as no one has given satisfactory answer. Why would there be a reminder (three times) that specifically different powers do not stack in the area of rules that discusses powers in general, and in the situation where the general rule you assume to exist is not ever mentioned anywhere?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Liturgies - it isnt down to reading, at all. The reminder that different powers stack is just that - a reminder. It does not define a new rule, at all.

You reduce T4 to T3
You cast enfgeeble again. Find the restriction that stops that unit becoming T2. Page and graph. Refusal to provide a rule will be treated as concession that there is no rules argument.

Sorry Nos there is no permission to have them stack and there is a restriction there that different powers stack, I'm glad that you agree that your inability to provide a rule is a concession.
Different powers stack, that is stated clearly, it doesn't state anywhere that the same power stacks. So I don't need to show that T4 goes to T3 and stops there forever, I am saying that you cannot stack the same power as by my understanding of the word different you haven't got a RAW permission to do so. So unlike Symphony of Pain you cannot use the same power a few times to cripple a unit.

The absence of a rule that ALL powers stack and constant reminders that different powers stack and that certain powers say that they can stack does not support the "Oh it's just a reminder that they all stack" it looks far more like a reminder of Different powers stack and only certain powers can stack with themselves. That being said the question of different is still up in the air but calling it a reminder and sticking to that is avoiding any sort of debate.


On a side note: Why have people started demanding rules to counter arguments on here that have no support in RAW?

Yet there is a general rule? Its called "you have permission to resolve powers" - then each power will determine if it has accumulated effects or not.

Its that straightforward.

Again: how do you decide it isnt a reminder? Why are you making a rule up, out of whole cloth, when no such rule exists?

Liturgies - so you cannot prove your argument? Conceded, thanks for being "gracious" about it.

We have permission to resovle the power. You are trying to stop that power from resolving and the effects being applied, without having a rule to do so. As per the tenets of this forum, please provide an actual rule, page and graph, to back up your claims

Your continued refusal will be noted as your concession you have failed to present any rules to back up your argument, in violation of the tenets of this forum. Or would you like to provide some? BEcause you continued harping on about the rmeinder doesnt actually magically create a rule out of thin air - one you have so far failed to provide, despite claiming it is there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again: how do you decide it isnt a reminder?

Reminder of what? It absolutely makes sense to have a reminder about specific situation in the text talking about generic situation.

Bikes in 5th edition BRB reminded you they didnt count for Instant Death purposes. That was fairly specific.

It is a reminder that powers can indeed stack. THat is all you need as a reminder. They then chose to be even more redundant by repeating it - but again, redundancy is not proof of necessity.

You have no rules argument so you are now trying to claim that it "makes no sense" to do tyhis? In a GW ruleset, THAT is the strongest arugment you can come up with?

I assume you are now in "HIWPI" territory, as you cannot present an actual rules based argument?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bikes in 5th edition BRB reminded you they didnt count for Instant Death purposes. That was fairly specific.

It is not an odd reminder because the actually was a rule difference there. The situation here is that in midst of the generic rules of the situation there is this 'reminder' that rules work in certain way for specific subset of powers. It is insane if rules work that way for all powers.

So, again, you do not have an argument based in the written
rules?

It is functionally a reminder, as it does not alter how the rules ACTUALLY work in any way shape or form. Something I note you very carefully never respond to.

Are you arguing HYWPI? Please follow the tenets of this forum if so. If not, provide an actual rules argument please, as you have yet to do so (breaking the tenets of this forum)

Permission to resolve but not permission to stack. I'm glad you think I'm being gracious.

I think it's rich you accuse people of making stuff up when you're doing the same by asserting it's a reminder.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Permission to resolve but not permission to stack. I'm glad you think I'm being gracious.

I think it's rich you accuse people of making stuff up when you're doing the same by asserting it's a reminder.

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

Yes. As I mentioned, both interpretations are valid (due to the poor wording of the sentence). The first is that the target has multiple enfeeble "clouds" around it, but they all have the same effect. The power has been resolved, but it has no real effect. The second is that each individual resolution further adds an effect. However, the second makes the text stating that "different powers are cumulative" and that "no psyker can cast the same power twice" unnecessary, so it is not one that should be embraced.

liturgies of blood wrote:Permission to resolve but not permission to stack.

Ah, so despite you being told to make them -1T yo9u arent going to do that? Found a rule yet to back up your argument, or are you still handwaving that away and pretending it doesnt matter?

liturgies of blood wrote:I'm glad you think I'm being gracious.

Nope,. "gracious". Difference there. ITs quite subtle though. However it IS a differnce that exists, and hasnt been made up.

liturgies of blood wrote:I think it's rich you accuse people of making stuff up when you're doing the same by asserting it's a reminder.

SO, care to actually provide any rules to back up your argument? I am asserting it is a reminder because functionally that is what it is, and I have backed up [u]my[/u/] assertion with actual rules, something you have failed to do in violation of the tenets of this forum.

So, your refusal to provide any actual rules to backup your assertion is accepted as your concession that you have no argument.

It says nowhere that resolving equates stacking of effects. It only allows different powers to stack that is all the rules allow.

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

Edit: @liturgies
Ah, so again you fail to present a rules argument? Any chance you could follow the tenets, or are we now in HYWPIterritory? AS again you should note that you are talking a houserule you play, and not the rules of 40k

You are told to make unit X -1T. You do so. they go from T4 to T3
You are told to make unit X -1T. They go from T3 to T2. That is RESOLVING the power. Unless you reduce their toughness, you have not RESOLVED the power

You are claiming that The second casting "resolves" but instead of going from T3 to T2 they stay at T3. You have yet to provide a single rules argument to support your assertion, and as such it will be considered JUST a houserule you are making up

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

Or following the rules?

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It says nowhere that resolving equates stacking of effects. It only allows different powers to stack that is all the rules allow.

The rules allow you to cast enfeeble on a target and resolve it. That target is now -1T (From T4 to T3).

The rules also allow a different Psyker to cast enfeeble on that same target. That enfeeble reduces the, now T3, target by -1. bringing the target to T2.

This is all allowed by the rules.

Do you have any rules that say not to apply the -1? because you have not posted any rules that restrict these allowed actions.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

Good grief, so when you cannot find an actual rules argument, despite being asked repeatedly to actually DO so, you resort to name calling?

Any more fallacies you would like to add in to this thread? You're on a fair number now.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

It doesn't matter if it's a reminder or not.
The sentence, as written, doesn't stop same maledictions from stacking. It might imply it, but that's obviously up to interpretation.
It absolutely does not forbid it. Any attempts to say that it does are logically flawed.

So rules-lawyering for an advantage?

No. Reported.
You're making an assumption that you're absolutely correct on guessing their intent. I disagree. I'm not trying to get any advantage out of it.

It seems like some of these arguements do not understand what a permissive ruleset is. It means you need to have permission in the rules to do something. Permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to be cumulative. The only things that have permission to stack in the brb are rule and wargear (pg2 i think) and different psykic powers(page 68). This leads us back to the discission on what different means. Any arguement about other aspects is clearly covered by RAW.

Note for those arguing that permission to resolve powers is permission to be cumulative: in the RESOLVING psychic powers section on page 68, only different powers are given permission to stack. If you can find anywhere that actually gives permission for powers that are not different to stack, I will concede the arguement. Until you can find that permission, you have no proof to back you're arguement.

cryhavok wrote:
It seems like some of these arguements do not understand what a permissive ruleset is. It means you need to have permission in the rules to do something.

Your argument, and those with similar arguments to yours seem to be the ones that "do not understand what a permissive ruleset is."

cryhavok wrote:
Permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to be cumulative.

This is false.

The power dictates how to resolve itself.

If you do not lower the Toughness of the unit by 1, you have not resolved the power.

 DeathReaper wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
It seems like some of these arguements do not understand what a permissive ruleset is. It means you need to have permission in the rules to do something.

Your argument, and those with similar arguments to yours seem to be the ones that "do not understand what a permissive ruleset is."

cryhavok wrote:
Permission to resolve a power is not permission for it to be cumulative.

This is false.

The power dictates how to resolve itself.

If you do not lower the Toughness of the unit by 1, you have not resolved the power.

Actually the BRB tells you how to resolve the power. It is under "resolving psichic powers" it does not give permission for powers that are not different. A lack of anything in the BRB giving permission is the exact opposite of permission. Until you actually show permission, you do not have it.

cryhavok wrote:
it does not give permission for powers that are not different.

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

exactly... nothing is needed to "stop" same spell stacking...

you need explicit permission to do it.

it being STACK the spell... not cast or resolve the spell

having anecdotal "well i can cast/resolve the spell twice, and 1+1=2 " is not a good argument, nor is it bases in the rules.

the assumption that you even add the 1's is an assumption, not based in rules.

the target has enfeeble cast on them, they are -1 t, another enfeeble is cast, they are already at -1 t, which is what enfeeble states, so the conditions are already met.

explicit permission must be given to allow you to add the 1's up.

we all know it can be cast/resolved, that is not the same as stacking so stop wrongly equating these terms

The power gives a cloud over the unit that says "While in effect, this is -1 S/T". The problem is, there is no rule given for what happens when there are multiple identical "clouds". However, the explicit permission given for how to resolve different "clouds" and the necessity of making the same power the "same" for the psyker rule, means that by saying they are cumulative and not concurrent, you are breaking those rules (well, breaking one, making one pointless).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If all maledictions would stack, it would say that. It doesn't. It says different maledictions stack.

I enfeeble you. You suffer -1T.
I use that nurgle power on yuo. You're supposed to suffer -1T. You're already suffering -1T from the Enfeeble. Do they stack? Oh, the rule says they do.

I have permission to cast a second Enfeeble.
I have permission to apply the effect (assuming I passed the test and you failed to deny).
Find denial of that permission. Permission for different ones to stack is not denial for same ones to stack.

you do not need denial rules to deny an action.... in a permissive rule set you need permission to perform an action.

denial is not needed to stop stacking, permission is needed to allow it.

permission to stack different powers is not permission to stack identical powers

permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

 easysauce wrote:
explicit permission must be given to allow you to add the 1's up.

You're failing to resolve the power if you don't.
And adding up the 1's (or taking away the 1's in this case) is covered in the Enfeeble rules.
-1
It's right there. How do you resolve minus one?
You're saying it doesn't say minus. Maths disagrees.

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

In the exact section which discusses resolving it powers it says repeatedly which powers stack. Claiming that other powers stack too, because it didn't specifically say they don't is rules-lawyering or alternatively acute failure to understand context of the sentence, sorry if that offends someone.

To me it is like this: I have a bowl of candies with lollipops, candy canes and few chocolate bars. I say to bunch of kids: "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops."
Then one of the kids takes all the chocolate bars and says "You didn't I say I can't take multiple chocolate bars!"

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

In the exact section which discusses resolving it powers it says repeatedly which powers stack. Claiming that other powers stack too, because it didn't specifically say they don't is rules-lawyering or alternatively acute failure to understand context of the sentence, sorry if that offends someone.

To me it is like this: I have a bowl of candies with lollipops, candy canes and few chocolate bars. I say to bunch of kids: "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops."
Then one of the kids takes all the chocolate bars and says "You didn't I say I can't take multiple chocolate bars!"

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

The only way they don't stack is if powers with the same name are not "different" (yet to be proven).
They do if you follow rules for resolving powers OR different castings of the same power are "different".

Rules not insults please.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

In the exact section which discusses resolving it powers it says repeatedly which powers stack. Claiming that other powers stack too, because it didn't specifically say they don't is rules-lawyering or alternatively acute failure to understand context of the sentence, sorry if that offends someone.

To me it is like this: I have a bowl of candies with lollipops, candy canes and few chocolate bars. I say to bunch of kids: "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops."
Then one of the kids takes all the chocolate bars and says "You didn't I say I can't take multiple chocolate bars!"

Perhaps this is a cultural difference - your example is perfectly valid in that it would be unfair to punish the chocolate bar child. The proper way to word it (to include a restriction) would be "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops but only a single chocolate bar."

See? It's possible to post without insulting someone. I've done so.

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

The only way they don't stack is if powers with the same name are not "different" (yet to be proven).
They do if you follow rules for resolving powers OR different castings of the same power are "different".

As it has been said several times: if multiple castings the same power are different, then one psyker can cast same power multiple times as each separate casting is different, and thus it is impossible to ever be casting same power multiple times.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

The intent is not clear - please stop asserting that it is.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

In the enfeeble rules it does not give you permission to have the effect be cumulative. In the BRB it does not give you permission for the effect to be cumulative. The result is that the effect is not cumulative. Any other result selectively ignores rules as written.

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

Clear intent?
Please prove the "clear intent". I can't mind read.

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

In the enfeeble rules it does not give you permission to have the effect be cumulative. In the BRB it does not give you permission for the effect to be cumulative. The result is that the effect is not cumulative. Any other result selectively ignores rules as written.

So you're choosing not to apply the -1STR?
Cite a rule please. Cite the rule as written I'm ignoring. Just once when asked for that I'd like anyone to produce it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Perhaps this is a cultural difference - your example is perfectly valid in that it would be unfair to punish the chocolate bar child. The proper way to word it (to include a restriction) would be "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops but only a single chocolate bar."

I agree that your wording is clearer. However, this is binary situation: either you can take multiple chocolate bars or you can't. And even from the original sentence a normal person would infer you can't (though 'normal people' might not contain kids, so it would still be bad wording for that particular situation.)

Similarly I assume that GW put that sentence (and repeated it twice) in the psychic power rules for a reason. In that context one must conclude that saying: 'in this specific situation powers stack' infers that in other situations they don't.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Perhaps this is a cultural difference - your example is perfectly valid in that it would be unfair to punish the chocolate bar child. The proper way to word it (to include a restriction) would be "You can take candy from this bowl; you can take multiple candy canes and lollipops but only a single chocolate bar."

I agree that your wording is clearer. However, this is binary situation: either you can take multiple chocolate bars or you can't. And even from the original sentence a normal person would infer you can't (though 'normal people' might not contain kids, so it would still be bad wording for that particular situation.)

Similarly I assume that GW put that sentence (and repeated it twice) in the psychic power rules for a reason. In that context one must conclude that saying: 'in this specific situation powers stack' infers that in other situations they don't.

No, you're inserting intent. That's absolutely not a valid, logical reading.
A "normal" person would infer, from your original statement, that more information was required to determine intent. "So can I take multiple chocolate bars?" would be the response I would expect.
Again, cultural differences. Stop assuming that because someone isn't from around you they must automatically be breaking rules to gain an advantage. I think I've cast enfeeble... twice? And not in the same games.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Following the rules is rules lawyering? Any other insults for people that don't agree with you?

Here rules-lawyering refers to arguing against the clear intent on the rules on technicality. It is not necessarily an insult, some people like to do that and play that way, albeit is certainly something I personally frown upon.

The intent is not clear - please stop asserting that it is.

Wheather or not the intent is clear is an opinion and a matter of perspective. To him the intent is clear. He can assert his opinion all he wants without being wrong... Especially when he is supported by raw.

 grendel083 wrote:

That's not anywhere in the rules.
You resolve a power.
You resolve it again.
The rules allow this. Nothing restricts it.

some people keep using the rules about how you cast and resolve powers as "proof" you can stack all/identical powers. Guess what, part of the rules for resolving powers include the rule I keep quoting to you why most people ignore this part of resolving the power

pg 68 under RESOLVE PYSCHIC POWERSpg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

it does not state that identical powers are. a similar entry is found under maledictions/blessings and is the same, with the word different in there as well. They repeat three times that different powers/mele/bless are cumulitive, and no where do they once state that identical or all powers/male/bless are cumulative. the latter is what the stackers are saying is 100%raw. even though that rule does not exist on paper.

over and over again "but I CAN CAST and RESOLVE powers" so what? part of resolving that power is that "different powers stack"

the power you are resolving, is it different from the one you are trying to resolve a stack effect on? yes? good the rule book says those stack!

no? its the same power? well the rule book doesnt say those stack anywhere.

resolving only says "different powers" stack and casting still isnt talking about stacking or cumulative effects at any point, and it is not blanket permission to stack all/identical powers as you stipulate since part of resolution is the rule on stacking different powers.

the only part that specifically talks about powers stacking, says that different powers stack.

what is certain is that it does not say all/identical powers stack and, in a permissive ruleset, the fact that it is not there means we can not do it.

otherwise you are saying the rule book does not have to have a restriction on every single rule that isnt written in it, things can only be disallowed when the are already allowed by some other rule in the first place.

So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

rigeld2 wrote:
So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

resolve psychic powers after deny the witch tells use that pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

it does not say pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple identical psychic powers are cumulative.

you need a rule to allow identical to stack, other wise you cannot resolve the power as you state. because part of resovling powers is pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

and your power is not different. so it does not match the RAW

you have taken an identical power and stacked it, which has no rule allowing it.

please quote the rule, under resolving powers, that says identical powers stack that lets you make them cumulative

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

resolve psychic powers after deny the witch tells use that pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

it does not say pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple identical psychic powers are cumulative.

you need a rule to allow identical to stack, other wise you cannot resolve the power as you state. because part of resovling powers is pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

and your power is not different. so it does not match the RAW

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
permission to cast/resolve is not permission to stack, stop equating terms that do not mean the same thing.

"you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry"
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness"

If I do not apply a -1 STR and TOUGH I have not resolved the power according to the instructions in its entry.

In the enfeeble rules it does not give you permission to have the effect be cumulative. In the BRB it does not give you permission for the effect to be cumulative. The result is that the effect is not cumulative. Any other result selectively ignores rules as written.

So you're choosing not to apply the -1STR?
Cite a rule please. Cite the rule as written I'm ignoring. Just once when asked for that I'd like anyone to produce it.

Rule as written: "Different powers are cumulative." This is the only type of power in the game give permission to stack. Enfeeble does not give you permission. RAW is that no permission is given to apply the second -1 when the power resolves. In a permissive ruleset you need permission to do anything. Anything includes stacking. You have permission to cast and reslove two enfeebles on the same target. You do not have permission for the result to be cumulative.

You're argument is essentially that permission to resolve a power is permission to ignore any and all restrictions. (Lack of permission to be cumulative is a restriction) That argument is simply wrong in so many ways that trying to explain them to you would be pointless.

Only three things are given blanket permission to be cumulative: rules, wargear, and different powers. Everything else must be given explicit permission to be cumulative or it is not. That is RAW. That is what you are ignoring.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

cryhavok wrote:
Rule as written: "Different powers are cumulative." This is the only type of power in the game give permission to stack. Enfeeble does not give you permission. RAW is that no permission is given to apply the second -1 when the power resolves. In a permissive ruleset you need permission to do anything. Anything includes stacking. You have permission to cast and reslove two enfeebles on the same target. You do not have permission for the result to be cumulative.

Again - you even stated I have permission to resolve the power.
Part of resolving the power is applying -1S and T.
If you do not apply -1S and T you have not resolved the power.

Since it seems like this is devolving into a circular argument, consider a real life example. If you are charged with three counts of robbery, convicted on each and sentenced to 5 years in prison for each, you've either been sentenced to 5 or 15 years, depending if the sentences are cconcurrent or cumulative. Both sentences fulfill the requirements. Here, we are not told if they are cumulative or concurrent. However, the repeated reference to different powers being cumulative would be unnecessary if they were cumulative; or if a new casting means it is "different", then the restriction against casting the same power would have no meaning. Either way, it breaks the rules, or bends them severely at the least. Saying that the same power is not cumulative doesn't have this problem, and the language of the rules, while not crystal clear, explicitly shows intent to treat different psychic powers in a different manner than the same one.

Blessings have the same wording as Malediction:

GW ruled Hammerhand = Able to stack so long as DIFFERENT CASTERS had manifested it.

Hammerhand = Blessing

Blessing wording same as Malediction: = Different powers when it comes to different casters. = Able to cumulatively stack.

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So again - you're choosing not to apply the -1 STR as required by resolving the power?

Cite the rule as to why.

resolve psychic powers after deny the witch tells use that pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

it does not say pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple identical psychic powers are cumulative.

you need a rule to allow identical to stack, other wise you cannot resolve the power as you state. because part of resovling powers is pg 68

unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

and your power is not different. so it does not match the RAW

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

No actually, that would be HOW PERMISSIVE RULESETS WORK! Seriously, why do we have to keep repeating that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kaisshau wrote:
Since it seems like this is devolving into a circular argument, consider a real life example. If you are charged with three counts of robbery, convicted on each and sentenced to 5 years in prison for each, you've either been sentenced to 5 or 15 years, depending if the sentences are cconcurrent or cumulative. Both sentences fulfill the requirements. Here, we are not told if they are cumulative or concurrent. However, the repeated reference to different powers being cumulative would be unnecessary if they were cumulative; or if a new casting means it is "different", then the restriction against casting the same power would have no meaning. Either way, it breaks the rules, or bends them severely at the least. Saying that the same power is not cumulative doesn't have this problem, and the language of the rules, while not crystal clear, explicitly shows intent to treat different psychic powers in a different manner than the same one.

Using a similar example, say you were convicted and sentenced to three life sentences. You will have still gone to trial (cast) and still been sentenced (resolved) but guess what, after that first lifetime is over, you are not serving more because lifetime sentences aren't, in fact, cumulative.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is logically different than "Same maledictions are not cumulative". Law of inverse, converse, or contrapositive, I don't remember it's been 15 years since that class.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is not a restrictive statement or rule as there is no restriction, only positive reinforcement. Thus it is a reminder. If you want it to be a restriction, it needs to read "ONLY different maledictions are cumulative", which it does not. Making it a restrictive statement requires intent, which is subjective and not RAW.

Here's a comparable statement:

"If you eat two different fruit, you will enjoy them." In the same fashion, this statement does not mean, nor does it imply "if you eat two of the same fruit, you will not enjoy them".

RAW, a psyker can spend a warp charge, take the ld test and resolve a power. The restrictions are in targeting legal units and not using the same power twice. A unit with enfeeble cast and resolved is -1str and -1t. There is no RAW restriction at that point that makes targeting and resolving enfeeble with a second psyker on the same unit. Resolving -1str and -1t is inherently permitted.

If you are claiming you can't resolve -1t twice, please quote an actual rule that says this, as the psychic process allows both powers to be cast and resolved following the correct process. If you haven't subtracted 2t, you haven't resolved enfeeble twice and broken a rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

resolving the power does not mean applying an additional -1 unless you have explicit permission to be cumulative. That permisssion does not exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
"Different maledictions are cumulative" is logically different than "Same maledictions are not cumulative". Law of inverse, converse, or contrapositive, I don't remember it's been 15 years since that class.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is not a restrictive statement or rule as there is no restriction, only positive reinforcement. Thus it is a reminder. If you want it to be a restriction, it needs to read "ONLY different maledictions are cumulative", which it does not. Making it a restrictive statement requires intent, which is subjective and not RAW.

Here's a comparable statement:

"If you eat two different fruit, you will enjoy them." In the same fashion, this statement does not mean, nor does it imply "if you eat two of the same fruit, you will not enjoy them".

RAW, a psyker can spend a warp charge, take the ld test and resolve a power. The restrictions are in targeting legal units and not using the same power twice. A unit with enfeeble cast and resolved is -1str and -1t. There is no RAW restriction at that point that makes targeting and resolving enfeeble with a second psyker on the same unit. Resolving -1str and -1t is inherently permitted.

If you are claiming you can't resolve -1t twice, please quote an actual rule that says this, as the psychic process allows both powers to be cast and resolved following the correct process. If you haven't subtracted 2t, you haven't resolved enfeeble twice and broken a rule.

Actually I am arguing that you can cast and resolve the second power, it just won't apply a further -1. Being a permissive ruleset means that if one thing has permission to do something (be cumulative) and nothing else does, then nothing else can.

Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

Oh, and you just made up yet another rule! - cite your proof that you require explicit permission to "stack", despite having permission to resolve? As you have just created this requiremetn from nowhere.

So, any chance of some rules? Maybe? Or will you start another thread up?

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

resolving the power does not mean applying an additional -1 unless you have explicit permission to be cumulative. That permisssion does not exist.

So you're not resolving the power? Because that absolutely does require applying a -1 S and T.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

I have. I have multiple times. You have not shown explicit permission to be cumulative. Accusing me of doing what you are doing, and accusing me of breaking forum tenents sems like it might be doing exactly that. So I am done with discussing this with you. You are wrong, and you resorting to personal attack makes you seem rather trollish. Also- reported.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

cryhavok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

resolving the power does not mean applying an additional -1 unless you have explicit permission to be cumulative. That permisssion does not exist.

So you're not resolving the power? Because that absolutely does require applying a -1 S and T.

No it is not. It is the desired effect of using the power, that does not mean it is the only way it can be resolved. Infact in the rules for resolving psychic powers it gives explicit permission for different powers to stack. If it is niether different, nor states that this bonus or penalty is cumulative in the power's description, then you have no permission to stack the effect and the power will resolve without stacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An example:
Say you have a spell that places a boulder on the opposing players head. It casts and resolves. Now say you can somehow cast this again, but:
The spell never gives permission to stack:
-not being able to stack the second boulder rolls off and lays of the ground beside you opponent, not squishing him flat.

Or

The spell's description states the additional boulders will stack on top of the first:
-The second boulder lands on top of the first, adding it's wieght and smashing your opponent to the ground. A third boulder is cast and you'r opponent is removed from play as he is little more than a red smear underneath some large rocks.

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

part of resolution rules is that different powers are cumulative.

you are not just resolving a power, you are resolving it cumulatively, which is only in the rules for different powers.

you can resolve the power, without it being cumulative, and with it being cumulative.

the book only has permission for different powers to be resovled cumulatively at this point, you can argue their intent is that all powers are cumulative, but its not RAW anywhere that they are,

again quote the line that permits identical powers to be cumulatively resolved,

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

you can resolve the power, without it being cumulative, and with it being cumulative.

the book only has permission for different powers to be resovled cumulatively at this point, you can argue their intent is that all powers are cumulative, but its not RAW anywhere that they are,

Citation pls?

There is only 1 way to resolve enfeeble, that is -1 str and -1t. If you haven't applied those modifiers despite expending warp charge, passing the psychic test, and DTW, you have broken a rule. Once a unit is enfeebled, it is still a legal target for another enfeeble, and nothing in any rule explicitly says the unit is not subject to a further -1/-1.

"Only different powers..." does not exist in the rulebook.

It really does just come down to exactly what GW means by "different" in this context. Both readings have logical weight behind them, and can both be equally resolved as true.

It has to be FAQed; there is no argument that's going to be definitive either way.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

Intent absolutely needs to be considered. Strict RAW if bloody useless. By RAW Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes.

cryhavok wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

I have. I have multiple times. You have not shown explicit permission to be cumulative. Accusing me of doing what you are doing, and accusing me of breaking forum tenents sems like it might be doing exactly that. So I am done with discussing this with you. You are wrong, and you resorting to personal attack makes you seem rather trollish. Also- reported.

reported for asking you to comply with the tenets of the forum, as we have done? Amusing.

You have failed to provide a single, solitary rule that allows you to not resolve the power.

You are claiming you are resolving the power, wwithout actually resolving the power. The resolution of the power is the targets Toughness and Strength are reduced by 1. You are failing to do reduce S and T, have failed to provide a single rule allowing you to NOT resolve the power, and are handwaving away this lack of a rules argument by claiming that something which is entirely silent on the matter somehow has an effect.

There is no personal attack in asking you to actually back up your argument with some rules, as we have consistently done.

There is only one troll here.

Nos, Enfeeble says 'whilst this power is in effect..." The power is in effect whether there is seven or one instances of it in effect. There is no more reason to assume its effects stack than there is to assume that multiple cases of Furious Charge would stack.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

Intent absolutely needs to be considered. Strict RAW if bloody useless. By RAW Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes.

You'll come across this attitude on this forum a lot. Many people here don't think the rules are what GW designed and are instead = RaW. They see any attempt to understand any beyond the most literal interpretation as baffling and believe common sense is evil. They defend their god RaW despite how ludicrous it often is to do so.

I can see the potential intent but for me it is not strong enough and hence I'm on the other side of the fence. Though I am willing to discuss the actual rules not just the RaW.

Fling - enough with ignoring the tenets. "THE RULES" are defined in the rulebook. OR is that too literal for you? Taking a heading and believing it?

Crimson - again with apples and oranges comparisons. FC is written such that one or more provides +1S. Enfeeble isnt. Which we've pointed out....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - enough with ignoring the tenets. "THE RULES" are defined in the rulebook. OR is that too literal for you? Taking a heading and believing it?

So what is the right section of forums to discuss rules as they're actually applied while playing the game, instead of intellectual grandstanding?

Crimson - again with apples and oranges comparisons. FC is written such that one or more provides +1S. Enfeeble isnt. Which we've pointed out....

Why? "Model with this special rule..." vs. "Whilst this power is in effect..." Seems pretty similar to me.

Because "Whilst this power is in effect..." The underlined refers to that specific casting of Enfeeble.

Furious charge states "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

So two totally separate things, as if a model has FC 5 times it still has FC, and "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

This is very different from this power of enfeeble being in effect, as it could have another enfeeble in effect as well, and the :This" in the enfeeble wording refers to that particular casting of enfeeble.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because "Whilst this power is in effect..." The underlined refers to that specific casting of Enfeeble.

Furious charge states "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

So two totally separate things, as if a model has FC 5 times it still has FC, and "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

This is very different from this power of enfeeble being in effect, as it could have another enfeeble in effect as well, and the :This" in the enfeeble wording refers to that particular casting of enfeeble.

You just decided that based on nothing. I could just as well argue that 'this' in FC means that particular instance of FC, and 'this' in Enfeeble refers to the power in general. (I do not actually argue the former but I do argue the latter.)

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Because "Whilst this power is in effect..." The underlined refers to that specific casting of Enfeeble.

Furious charge states "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

So two totally separate things, as if a model has FC 5 times it still has FC, and "In a turn in which a model with this special rule..."

This is very different from this power of enfeeble being in effect, as it could have another enfeeble in effect as well, and the :This" in the enfeeble wording refers to that particular casting of enfeeble.

You just decided that based on nothing. I could just as well argue that 'this' in FC means that particular instance of FC, and 'this' in Enfeeble refers to the power in general. (I do not actually argue the former but I do argue the latter.)

Actually context decided that, I did not.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - enough with ignoring the tenets. "THE RULES" are defined in the rulebook. OR is that too literal for you? Taking a heading and believing it?

So what is the right section of forums to discuss rules as they're actually applied while playing the game, instead of intellectual grandstanding?

Odd, I AM applying rules as how they are applied in the games. Also, I assume you are familiar with the tenets, where if you are discussing your own personal houserule you are required to denote that? Otherwise people will assume you are making an argument that can actually be argued against,

Crimson wrote:

Crimson - again with apples and oranges comparisons. FC is written such that one or more provides +1S. Enfeeble isnt. Which we've pointed out....

Why? "Model with this special rule..." vs. "Whilst this power is in effect..." Seems pretty similar to me.

Context is fun though, isnt it. The rules are actually very different.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Odd, I AM applying rules as how they are applied in the games. Also, I assume you are familiar with the tenets, where if you are discussing your own personal houserule you are required to denote that? Otherwise people will assume you are making an argument that can actually be argued against,

Ok. I hope your Wraithguard are not shooting then. But I'm not arguing my personal houserules, merely what the sentence "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." means in the context.

Context is fun though, isnt it. The rules are actually very different.

Oh, now you care about context!

And no, I do not agree that the context makes them different.

 Crimson wrote:
Ok. I hope your Wraithguard are not shooting then. But I'm not arguing my personal houserules, merely what the sentence "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." means in the context.

Mine fire. And my Wraithblades will assault. But that is because the people I play with have a house rule that allows it.

hyv3mynd wrote:"Different maledictions are cumulative" is logically different than "Same maledictions are not cumulative". Law of inverse, converse, or contrapositive, I don't remember it's been 15 years since that class.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is not a restrictive statement or rule as there is no restriction, only positive reinforcement. Thus it is a reminder. If you want it to be a restriction, it needs to read "ONLY different maledictions are cumulative", which it does not. Making it a restrictive statement requires intent, which is subjective and not RAW.

Here's a comparable statement:

"If you eat two different fruit, you will enjoy them." In the same fashion, this statement does not mean, nor does it imply "if you eat two of the same fruit, you will not enjoy them".

RAW, a psyker can spend a warp charge, take the ld test and resolve a power. The restrictions are in targeting legal units and not using the same power twice. A unit with enfeeble cast and resolved is -1str and -1t. There is no RAW restriction at that point that makes targeting and resolving enfeeble with a second psyker on the same unit. Resolving -1str and -1t is inherently permitted.

If you are claiming you can't resolve -1t twice, please quote an actual rule that says this, as the psychic process allows both powers to be cast and resolved following the correct process. If you haven't subtracted 2t, you haven't resolved enfeeble twice and broken a rule.

You are correct that the positive does not mean the negative but this is a permissive rule set so until you are permitted to enjoy the fruit you cannot. In the listed scenario you are only permitted to enjoy different fruit.

You cast and resolve a second enfeeble and it becomes an effect on the unit. The effect has not been permitted to accumulate with the other though so even though you have two effects(resolved powers) on the unit that say -1S and -1T the unit only drops from T4 to T3. The same power resolves a second time on the same target for no further effect because the rules do not say it is cumulative.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

Oh, and you just made up yet another rule! - cite your proof that you require explicit permission to "stack", despite having permission to resolve? As you have just created this requiremetn from nowhere.

So, any chance of some rules? Maybe? Or will you start another thread up?

The burden of proof is on permission. The BRB tells you what powers are cumulative. Find permission for two of the same power to be cumulative. Power resolution does not help, all powers resolve but added effect from additional powers can only come about in a cumulative fashion. IE -1T plus -1T equals -2T would be a cumulative way of resolving the powers. Permission for this could be assumed were it not for the fact that they explicitly state that some powers are cumulative. Given that, presuming they all are cumulative is akin to saying all units are infantry in addition to their listed type because they don't say they're not.

Your placing a cumulative ability on powers when the book does not state they have it.

hyv3mynd wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

you can resolve the power, without it being cumulative, and with it being cumulative.

the book only has permission for different powers to be resovled cumulatively at this point, you can argue their intent is that all powers are cumulative, but its not RAW anywhere that they are,

Citation pls?

There is only 1 way to resolve enfeeble, that is -1 str and -1t. If you haven't applied those modifiers despite expending warp charge, passing the psychic test, and DTW, you have broken a rule. Once a unit is enfeebled, it is still a legal target for another enfeeble, and nothing in any rule explicitly says the unit is not subject to a further -1/-1.

"Only different powers..." does not exist in the rulebook.

The difference between two non-cumulative -1S and -1T effects being resolved and two cumulative effects of the same sort should be fairly obvious. As I said, some powers are given permission to stack and some are not and in a permissive rule set denial by omission is 100% effective.

@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Resolution and cumulative effects are one in the same. You cannot resolve enfeeble without subtracting the stats. The rest of your argument fails because as stated on every page of this discussion, you have permission by RAW to use enfeeble from 2 different psykers on the same target. Once permission is granted to use the powers AND resolve them, you would need explicit wording for them NOT to be cumulative.

Yakface said it best:

 yakface wrote:
anytime rules involve numbers and math, there are pre-existing rules for mathematics naturally understood in the world. So if you just tell someone that there is a number and then you add one to that number and then add another 1 to that number, the basics of mathematics dictate that they are cumulative.

So by default, before you even enter the world of a game and permissive rules, people naturally understand numbers added together to be cumulative.

Therefore, even within a set of game rules, by default it is understood by most people that any numbers added or subtracted are going to be cumulative unless specified otherwise. The fact that the rules specify certain situations as being cumulative does not change this basic fact.

So really, the way it works is that with a game, you should always assume that if you have a numerical value and multiple things are added onto that, they would always be cumulative unless specified otherwise.

So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules also have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

There is no need to define Single, or Reduced in the BRB (Because the English Language defines those words), the BRB does not have to say that 4-1-1 =2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this, even in a permissive ruleset this is not needed.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

What else can that sentence mean! Why it is there! If they wanted to say powers stack, they would have said so. They didn't. They said different powers stack.

And they also said that models arriving by Deep Strike via Drop Pod Assault cannot assault. It is a reminder, not a restriction.

 Crimson wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

What else can that sentence mean! Why it is there! If they wanted to say powers stack, they would have said so. They didn't. They said different powers stack.

Well according to dictionary.com, among the definitions of "different" are also:
additional
several
various

Thus by using different definitions of the word "different" in the BRB sentence, you get:

"the effects of additional maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of several maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of various maledictions are cumulative"

Three interpretations of that phrase that support stacking enfeeble. Hence the debate between said phrase being either a restriction or a reminder.

 Happyjew wrote:
And they also said that models arriving by Deep Strike via Drop Pod Assault cannot assault. It is a reminder, not a restriction.

In a rules for drop pods! That is rules for specific vehicle reminding you of general rules. It is absolutely different situation than general (and only) rule for the situation 'reminding' you about a specific situation, while entirely omitting to spell out anywhere the general rule it is supposedly reminding you about. You cannot seriously believe that.

This is like if nowhere in the rules it would say that you cannot normally assault from vehicles, but would say you can assault from open-topped or assault vehicles and then people claim that you could assault from any vehicle because it doesn't say you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Well according to dictionary.com, among the definitions of "different" are also:
additional
several
various

Thus by using different definitions of the word "different" in the BRB sentence, you get:

"the effects of additional maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of several maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of various maledictions are cumulative"

Three interpretations of that phrase that support stacking enfeeble. Hence the debate between said phrase being either a restriction or a reminder.

Which is a sensible way to look the situation. Except that means that 'different' would mean different instances of the same power being different, thus not same. While talking about casting several powers, rules use word 'same' to mean power with the same name, and not merely instance. This leads me to believe that the reading you offer is wrong. However, I admit that this relies on GW using words 'same' and 'different' consistently and logically throughout the chapter, which is not necessarily the case.

hyv3mynd wrote:@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Resolution and cumulative effects are one in the same. You cannot resolve enfeeble without subtracting the stats. The rest of your argument fails because as stated on every page of this discussion, you have permission by RAW to use enfeeble from 2 different psykers on the same target. Once permission is granted to use the powers AND resolve them, you would need explicit wording for them NOT to be cumulative.

I did not say that permission was expressly denied, only that permission is given to one and not the other.

You can certainly resolve two effects without further effect than one if those effects are not cumulative.

DeathReaper wrote:Yakface said it best:

 yakface wrote:
anytime rules involve numbers and math, there are pre-existing rules for mathematics naturally understood in the world. So if you just tell someone that there is a number and then you add one to that number and then add another 1 to that number, the basics of mathematics dictate that they are cumulative.

So by default, before you even enter the world of a game and permissive rules, people naturally understand numbers added together to be cumulative.

Therefore, even within a set of game rules, by default it is understood by most people that any numbers added or subtracted are going to be cumulative unless specified otherwise. The fact that the rules specify certain situations as being cumulative does not change this basic fact.

So really, the way it works is that with a game, you should always assume that if you have a numerical value and multiple things are added onto that, they would always be cumulative unless specified otherwise.

So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules also have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

There is no need to define Single, or Reduced in the BRB (Because the English Language defines those words), the BRB does not have to say that 4-1-1 =2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this, even in a permissive ruleset this is not needed.

I usually agree with Yakface and would in this case as well except they went ahead and labled some powers as cumulative.

If the rules said nothing about it, I would be on the other side of the fence saying exactly what what you quoted(or to it's general effect). Since they labeled certain combinations as cumulative though and remained silent about the rest that assumption is no longer safe. Permission is now clearly given for some powers to stack. In a permissive rule set if some powers/units/weapons/anythings are given permission to do something and the rest are not, the rest cannot do that thing.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

Intent absolutely needs to be considered. Strict RAW if bloody useless. By RAW Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes.

You'll come across this attitude on this forum a lot. Many people here don't think the rules are what GW designed and are instead = RaW. They see any attempt to understand any beyond the most literal interpretation as baffling and believe common sense is evil. They defend their god RaW despite how ludicrous it often is to do so.

Wow. You couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't the first time you've been that insulting - welcome to ignore since reporting you does nothing.

 hyv3mynd wrote:


Well according to dictionary.com, among the definitions of "different" are also:
additional
several
various

Thus by using different definitions of the word "different" in the BRB sentence, you get:

"the effects of additional maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of several maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of various maledictions are cumulative"

Three interpretations of that phrase that support stacking enfeeble. Hence the debate between said phrase being either a restriction or a reminder.

You forgot the first two definitions:
1. not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different.
2. not identical; separate or distinct: three different answers.

enfeeble is the same as enfeeble, hence they are not different, and not cumulative.

Only by those interpretations of "different". As I illustrated, "different" has opposite meanings in our application.

I did not leave out those options, they are he versions championed by the anti-stacking crowd over the past 7 pages and 14ish pages of the thread identical to this one, before it was locked due to the same arguments and evolution into fire fights and sniping.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Only by those interpretations of "different". As I illustrated, "different" has opposite meanings in our application.

I did not leave out those options, they are he versions championed by the anti-stacking crowd over the past 7 pages and 14ish pages of the thread identical to this one, before it was locked due to the same arguments and evolution into fire fights and sniping.

ok then:

Various:
1. of different kinds, as two or more things; differing one from another: Various experiments have not proved his theory.
2. marked by or exhibiting variety or diversity: houses of various designs.

Several:
1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
2. respective; individual: They went their several ways.
3. separate; different: several occasions.

I'm not sure where you found additional, but I didn't see that one on dictionary.com. But from the other definitions you picked, we can see they do mean different, like the first two definitions say.

Right, this is why both sides think they're in the right. There's several definitions of "different". Several can mean different, but doesn't always. Different can mean not identical, but not always.

The thing that separates us is the "pro-stack" side sites a RAW process of using psychic powers, while the "anti-stack" side sites a statement which has no explicit restrictions, and relies on a 50/50 chance of one interpretation of a single word to even support a plea of intent.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Right, this is why both sides think they're in the right. There's several definitions of "different". Several can mean different, but doesn't always. Different can mean not identical, but not always.

The thing that separates us is the "pro-stack" side sites a RAW process of using psychic powers, while the "anti-stack" side sites a statement which has no explicit restrictions, and relies on a 50/50 chance of one interpretation of a single word to even support a plea of intent.

Just because one other power was given permission to stack does not mean that it can be extrapolated to all other powers. Check out this thread and see how many people will claim a faq to one ruling just applies to that one rule that was faq'd:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/526501.page

to quote a mod for the fun of it:

 Mannahnin wrote:


I don't think there's any basis to extrapolate further about other exceptions, given that the main rulebook FAQ is pretty darn comprehensive and explicit.

so the question is: is it universally accepted to extrapolate faq entries from one codex to all codex for almost identical rules?

Ok, here's a simple question.

Say, a hive tyrant casts Objuration Mechanicum on a flyer, which causes it to take a Haywire hit. A tervigon then also casts Objuration Mechanicum on the same flyer. So does the flyer take 2 haywire hits or just 1? Both units are casting the same psychic power, which is a malediction.

I'm gonna say no to enfeeble stacking. Just to be on the side of caution. Different under common terms, English dictionary aside, means what I'll guess the majority knows it to be. Two or more things that are not the same, identical as it were.

Just hold your breath for a FAQ .

I would say enfeeble does stack. As has been pointed out multiple times, you have permission to cast each instance of the power (from different users), and no specific restriction on multiple instances of the same power stacking. There is at best an implied restriction, but it's certainly not spelled out, and GW have had plenty of time to FAQ/errata it if they meant it to mean that ONLY different powers can stack.

Can we agree to stop bringing up the "...different powers are cumulative" bit? This statement only affects different powers. If you think otherwise you won't be passing Logic 101. If you feel it has no purpose otherwise, well sorry you feel that way but there is no rule stating that every sentence has to be relevant.

You have permission to apply modifiers cumulatively on page 2. You would need some sort of rule somewhere saying that applying multiple modifiers in an particular instance does not act in the way it does on page 2. Now if you're still saying you need permission to apply modifiers cumulatively, despite page 2, you'd have to explain why you don't argue that non-psychic power modifiers are inherently concurrent. After all the "different power" clause only applies to psychic powers.

If you really want to argue enfeeble not stacking look at the rules of enfeeble itself. "Whilst the power is in effect...", well golly this seems important. You could argue "the power" only refers to the particular instance of enfeeble. Then I'd argue, in that case, you could never truly cast the same power twice and therefore a single psyker can cast different instances of enfeeble in the same turn. If enfeeble A is not the same as enfeeble B the the same psyker can cast both enfeeble A and B. But if enfeeble A is the same as enfeeble B, then multiple instances would yield the same result.

Of course if enfeeble was worded "The affected unit suffers -1 to S and T", with no additional clauses, it would stack.

jy2 wrote:Ok, here's a simple question.

Say, a hive tyrant casts Objuration Mechanicum on a flyer, which causes it to take a Haywire hit. A tervigon then also casts Objuration Mechanicum on the same flyer. So does the flyer take 2 haywire hits or just 1? Both units are casting the same psychic power, which is a malediction.

A hit is not a sustained effect (though the resulting damage is) so their is no need for it to stack. It gets resolved at the time the power is resolved and has no further effect. Also damage to vehicles is well covered and is permitted to stack.

Tarrasq wrote:Can we agree to stop bringing up the "...different powers are cumulative" bit? This statement only affects different powers. If you think otherwise you won't be passing Logic 101. If you feel it has no purpose otherwise, well sorry you feel that way but there is no rule stating that every sentence has to be relevant.

You have permission to apply modifiers cumulatively on page 2. You would need some sort of rule somewhere saying that applying multiple modifiers in an particular instance does not act in the way it does on page 2. Now if you're still saying you need permission to apply modifiers cumulatively, despite page 2, you'd have to explain why you don't argue that non-psychic power modifiers are inherently concurrent. After all the "different power" clause only applies to psychic powers.

If you really want to argue enfeeble not stacking look at the rules of enfeeble itself. "Whilst the power is in effect...", well golly this seems important. You could argue "the power" only refers to the particular instance of enfeeble. Then I'd argue, in that case, you could never truly cast the same power twice and therefore a single psyker can cast different instances of enfeeble in the same turn. If enfeeble A is not the same as enfeeble B the the same psyker can cast both enfeeble A and B. But if enfeeble A is the same as enfeeble B, then multiple instances would yield the same result.

Of course if enfeeble was worded "The affected unit suffers -1 to S and T", with no additional clauses, it would stack.

CC weapons are used in the assault phase so they are assault weapons. That might be true if some weapons were not labeled assault weapons. Does labeling some weapons 'assault' mean that other weapons are not assault? In a permissive rule set, absolutely. Well the BRB says some power combinations are cumulative. Does it say the others are cumulative? No. Then why would you say they are?

And I also agree on the wording of enfeeble but we seem to be discussing psychic powers in general so I let it go.

 Abandon wrote:
CC weapons are used in the assault phase so they are assault weapons. That might be true if some weapons were not labeled assault weapons. Does labeling some weapons 'assault' mean that other weapons are not assault? In a permissive rule set, absolutely. Well the BRB says some power combinations are cumulative. Does it say the others are cumulative? No. Then why would you say they are?

Except in this case all weapons have been labeled assault. As all powers are allowed to be resolved.
"Stacking" and "Cumulative" as just words. Words people are getting too hooked on. What they actually do is well within the rules.

For example:

4-1-1 = 2
Call that stacking if you really want. Call it maths. Call it whatever.

You're proposing:
4-1-1 = 3

All becasue it doesn't say stacking is allowed. You suggest we forget procedure or basic maths. All because they didn't use a buzz word.

We can resolve the power. It take one away from the value.
We can reolve the power again. Take one away from the value.

Does it say stacking is allowed? No.
Does it need to? No. Simply follow the precedure in the rules. It happens by itself.

Does it say stacking is forbidden? No.
Does it need to? Yes. Permission is granted to resolve a power. Nothing resticts it happening again. This is the very nature of a permissive ruleset.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
CC weapons are used in the assault phase so they are assault weapons. That might be true if some weapons were not labeled assault weapons. Does labeling some weapons 'assault' mean that other weapons are not assault? In a permissive rule set, absolutely. Well the BRB says some power combinations are cumulative. Does it say the others are cumulative? No. Then why would you say they are?

Except in this case all weapons have been labeled assault. As all powers are allowed to be resolved.
"Stacking" and "Cumulative" as just words. Words people are getting too hooked on. What they actually do is well within the rules.

Incorrect, not all powers are said to be cumulative. Though all powers are said to resolve. Permissive rules - some will resolve cumulatively and some will not.

 grendel083 wrote:

For example:

4-1-1 = 2
Call that stacking if you really want. Call it maths. Call it whatever.

You're proposing:
4-1-1 = 3

All becasue it doesn't say stacking is allowed. You suggest we forget procedure or basic maths. All because they didn't use a buzz word.

We can resolve the power. It take one away from the value.
We can reolve the power again. Take one away from the value.

Does it say stacking is allowed? No.
Does it need to? No. Simply follow the precedure in the rules. It happens by itself.

Does it say stacking is forbidden? No.
Does it need to? Yes. Permission is granted to resolve a power. Nothing resticts it happening again. This is the very nature of a permissive ruleset.

Yes basic addition and subtraction do not work non-cumulatively. Not everything works in that manor though and because they have specified what does it should not be assumed everything does.

That being said this really comes down to the question can powers be resolved non-cumulatively? I think yes, you think no. I'm good leaving it at that and will just join the others waiting for an FAQ and will agree to disagree as all the words being added to this topic lately has not caused it to accumulate new points.

I’ve been following this thread (and the other) for a while now, and have noticed a few glaring holes in the logic chains on both sides. For one, it appears that the entire premise behind the “Stacker” argument is the 5th Ed FAQ that allowed all benefits and penalties to stack regardless of source. Unfortunately, that FAQ was superseded by the very first 6th Ed FAQ, yet permission for all benefits and penalties to stack was not retained in any 6th Ed FAQ. This brings us back to the BRB.

First, let’s start off on page 2, under “Modifiers” and “Multiple Modifiers”:

Certain pieces of wargear and special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc.), or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.) ….

If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, the apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values …

What is interesting about these rules is that only wargear and special rules are mentioned as being able to modify a model’s characteristics. Keep that in mind.

Page 32, Special Rules, under “A Compendium of Special Rules” and “What Special Rules do I Have?”:

Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a model’s Attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules, or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.

The important parts of these rules is that modifiers to characteristics occur via special rules granted by wargear and psychic powers, and that a model cannot gain the benefit of the same rule more than once yet benefits from multiple different rules are cumulative. The often quoted page 68 continues to reinforce this in the “Blessing” entry and “Malediction” entry. While psychic powers are not in and of themselves special rules, a -1 to Strength and Toughness from Enfeeble is a special rule being applied to a model. Keep that in mind.

Per the chain of logic above, Enfeeble grants a specific modifier to an effected model. That modifier is by definition a special rule, which must follow the limitations applied to it for being a special rule. As such, the benefits (or penalties) granted to a model by multiple uses of the same specific rule do not stack, unless otherwise noted. Enfeeble’s special rules (-1 to Strength and Toughness, treats all terrain as difficult terrain) do not include language noting the ability to stack. As such, multiple uses of Enfeeble will never grant more than a single -1 characteristic modifier to two specific stats, nor cause terrain for that model to count as “double difficult”.

This is the same for the often mentioned Hammerhand psychic power, which also does not include language to allow stacking (yet Might of Titan does include such language, allowing it to stack with Hammerhand).

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I’ve been following this While psychic powers are not in and of themselves special rules, a -1 to Strength and Toughness from Enfeeble is a special rule being applied to a model.

Did I miss where you cited that? I'm sure I did, since you're stating it with such authority and literally your entire argument hinges on it.
Enfeeble does not "make this abundantly clear" therefore you cannot consider the effect to be a special rule.

Okay, while I am of the opinion that they shouldn't stack here is something I was able to find:
The BRB, on page 2, has rules for how modifiers stack.

However:

The BRB does not have, as far as I could tell any rules anywhere for modifiers not stacking.

While I think the intention was for them to not stack, I think GW's high quality editors failed to adequately support that intention in RAW.

As I pointed out, we are only give permission to stack modifiers from different sources, such as the -1 T from Rad Grenades will stack with the -1 T from Enfeeble because each modifier occurs from a different source. This is a good example because GW has pointed out in the GK FAQ that multiple uses of Rad Grenades are not cumulative, while there is still no mention anywhere that the effects of Enfeeble are cumulative.

As to there being no example on pg. 2 of multiple modifiers NOT being applied, there are in fact no examples of multiple additive or subtractive modifiers being applied at all!

This all goes back the how 6th has been written: loosely, requiring the interaction of several individual rules to completely satisfy any one action. GW has literally gone out of their to make each rule fail when considered in a vacuum, forcing veteran players to drop their assumptions to embrace the body of rules as a single tapestry rather than a work of individual threads. Which is to say that GW wrote a set of poorly worded rules that requires us to search for context in other sections.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I’ve been following this While psychic powers are not in and of themselves special rules, a -1 to Strength and Toughness from Enfeeble is a special rule being applied to a model.

Did I miss where you cited that? I'm sure I did, since you're stating it with such authority and literally your entire argument hinges on it.
Enfeeble does not "make this abundantly clear" therefore you cannot consider the effect to be a special rule.

Then it cannot modify characteristics at all. It is certainly not wargear.

So you're refusing to resolve the power again...

Man, could you please cite a rule for once?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're refusing to resolve the power again...

Man, could you please cite a rule for once?

Jeffersonian already did. If it alters characteristic, it has to be wargear or special rule.

Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.
A Psychic Power is neither. It has permission granted by the psychic power rules on page 68 to resolve the power.
How do we resolve the power? We apply -1 S and T.

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.
A Psychic Power is neither. It has permission granted by the psychic power rules on page 68 to resolve the power.
How do we resolve the power? We apply -1 S and T.

QFT

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.

Those are rules that cover how modifiers work. You have to refer to them to apply any modifiers.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not true.
Those rules only cover wargear or special rules.

Those are rules that cover how modifiers work. You have to refer to them to apply any modifiers.

Basic < Advanced.
The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

rigeld2 wrote:

The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

Why you think Enfeeble rules are not special rules? How you determine which rules are 'special rules' as meant here, and which are just additional rules?

I pulled this one in the other thread that got locked, but to those of you that argue that stat modifiers don't stack unless we are given specific permission, consider this:

An unsaved wound confers a permanent -1 Wound stat modifier to a character. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. This is stated on page 15.

But as far as I can tell, there's nowhere in the rulebook where we are granted explicit permission for the negative wound modifier incurred from unsaved wounds to stack - I can't even find an example where a character suffers two wounds. Does this mean that multi-wound models cannot be killed? Because that's essentially what you are arguing.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

Why you think Enfeeble rules are not special rules? How you determine which rules are 'special rules' as meant here, and which are just additional rules?

Page 32 "What Special Rules Do I Have?"
Psychic Powers are not Special Rules, but sometimes grant them. And it's very clear when a Special Rule is granted.
In this case it is not granting a Special Rule, but a modifier.

So for example, Exarch Powers are not special rules?

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The basic rules say there's only 2 ways to modify. Enfeeble, being a Psychic Power, is an advanced rule and adds another.

Why you think Enfeeble rules are not special rules? How you determine which rules are 'special rules' as meant here, and which are just additional rules?

Special Rules are defined in pages 32-43. Is Enfeeble listed there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So for example, Exarch Powers are not special rules?

I'm not familiar with the Eldar codex.
But codexes can grant extra special rules because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

rigeld2 wrote:

Special Rules are defined in pages 32-43. Is Enfeeble listed there?

So anything that is not listed there or specifically called special rule is not a special rule?

I'm not familiar with the Eldar codex.
But codexes can grant extra special rules because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

Exarch Powers are not called special rules. You can also take up to two of them and nothing preventing taking the same power multiple times*. By your logic, they stack.
(*may take up to two of the following...)

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Special Rules are defined in pages 32-43. Is Enfeeble listed there?

So anything that is not listed there or specifically called special rule is not a special rule?

... Yes, that's correct.

I'm not familiar with the Eldar codex.
But codexes can grant extra special rules because the codex supersedes the rulebook.

Exarch Powers are not called special rules. You can also take up to two of them and nothing preventing taking the same power multiple times*. By your logic, they stack.
(*may take up to two of the following...)

I'll take your word for it. Sure, they stack provided there are no other rules applicable.
And?

rigeld2 wrote:

I'll take your word for it. Sure, they stack provided there are no other rules applicable.
And?

Because I'm pretty sure that no one plays that way.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I'll take your word for it. Sure, they stack provided there are no other rules applicable.
And?

Because I'm pretty sure that no one plays that way.

And that matters in a discussion about the rules as they're written why?
Especially when it's been brought up (multiple times) that most people actually do allow Enfeeble to stack?

Do you have a rule to cite that's applicable or are you just trolling now and refusing to admit you're wrong?

Also, you might not have quoted all of the Exarch powers stuff correctly (actually, I know you didn't since you only quoted 8 words) so I can't say for sure if people are playing incorrectly or not. Again, not like it matters.

rigeld, If you are curious, the wording for all models who can take Exarch powers is as follows:

The [model] may take up to two of the following Exarch powers:
XXX.........XX pts
XXX.........XX pts
XXX.........XX pts

This whole discussion is about a priori assumptions. You seem to think that a priori assumption is that things stack unless specifically forbidden from doing so. My a priori assumption is that they do not stack unless allowed. Neither of us can cite direct rule saying either, as such does not exist. We can merely point areas of rules that seems to imply that writers had one of these a priori assumptions.

You cannot cite a rule that says psychic powers always stack, nor you can cite rule that says that resolving a power automatically causes stacking. You think that you don't have to, because you already have made a priori assumption that things always stack.