Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lungpickle wrote:
“The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, blessings cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).”

They explained it well here for blessings. However one blurb is left off on the maledictions. See here.
“Maledictions can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership”

See how the final parts are exactly alike I'd say that both maledictions and blessings must be different to stack.

Where is this? If it does state the effects are cumulative, then they do indeed stack, whether it is the same or not, cumulative is cumulative.

With Blessings, they explained it perfectly as buff stacking would be incredibly strong, but debuffs stacking is normal and expected.

A leadership check is not a bonus or a penalty, it wouldn't stack because taking one test would satisfy all 3 instances, but they would have a -3 to that one check.

That's the only conclusion I can come to because it specifically states you only have to take 1 test, if at the end of the phase you take 1 test it satisfies the requirement for each of the Terrifies, that and it states that only bonuses and penalties are cumulative.

Hollismason wrote:
A leadership check is not a bonus or a penalty, it wouldn't stack because taking one test would satisfy all 3 instances, but they would have a -3 to that one check.

That's the only conclusion I can come to because it specifically states you only have to take 1 test, if at the end of the phase you take 1 test it satisfies the requirement for each of the Terrifies, that and it states that only bonuses and penalties are cumulative.

I can see this. Having to take multiples wouldn't make sense at all, I will edit that.

Also if you cannot cast Maledictions on a unit more than once, then these are the spells that are affected and unaffected by it.

Un-Affected
Misfortune
Objuration Mechinacum
Dominate

Affected
Banishment
Terrify
Hallucinate
Enfeeble

Eldar

Affected
A Lot.

Whether that means , different Maledictions or what definition do they mean by different. Regardless of what people think two things can be the same thing and be different. 

It's not some illogical leap. If I have two identical pieces of paper they are different pieces of paper, they're still the same but they are also still different. The argument people have is that Blessings are specifically written in a very very specific way as to not stack ever which is why we're arguing about this. 

If Maledictions had the same wording as Blessings, I wouldn't argue at all. It doesn't though. 

We know what different means because we know what the same means. So we know that different means differently named. This is not even in dispute by those on the pro-stacking side. They simply claim that the wording is redundant.

9 pages huh. Where was the last new relevant thought in this thread? On page 2?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Whether that means , different Maledictions or what definition do they mean by different. Regardless of what people think two things can be the same thing and be different. 

It's not some illogical leap. If I have two identical pieces of paper they are different pieces of paper, they're still the same but they are also still different. The argument people have is that Blessings are specifically written in a very very specific way as to not stack ever which is why we're arguing about this. 

If Maledictions had the same wording as Blessings, I wouldn't argue at all. It doesn't though. 

We know what different means because we know what the same means. So we know that different means differently named. This is not even in dispute by those on the pro-stacking side. They simply claim that the wording is redundant.

You just jumped from different to different named. When different has a multiple use. Same meaning.

Different Psyker Casting

Different power being used

Different target of the spell

You see the differences?

So we know that different means differently named.

This simply doesn't compute from an English perspective as a word cannot have its word in its meaning.

What we know is different. Whether this is a different named power or different Psyker using the same power, we do not know for sure when you look at your line of text.

Except the rulebook states that the same Psyker cannot cast the same power, which means another Psyker would need to cast it. But we lack anything that is preventing us from having different applications of the Terrify power on one target.

With Blessings, they explained it perfectly as buff stacking would be incredibly strong, but debuffs stacking is normal and expected.

Genius sorry but why is buffing so inherently stronger than debuffs? Basically all the best buffs to stack inherently don't because they only effect the Psyker or give a special rule. So why would say Hammerhand stacking be so much more powerful than Enfeeble or Horrify (couple of horrifies backed up by a Psychic Shriek for example). Please enlighten me. Debuffs are more useful than buffs for stacking in this edition where you do damage from range, stacking debuffs to toughness and leadership for example will have a much greater effect than stacking strength bonuses which have no effect on firepower...

It actually does get worse when you consider how many stackable psychic powers Eldar get. I was just using Terrify as a an example. There are much worse things.

I don't think we're pretty much a stalemate, I think at least we know that tests dealing with Psychic powers do not repeat, that's about it.

Hollismason wrote:
It actually does get worse when you consider how many stackable psychic powers Eldar get. I was just using Terrify as a an example. There are much worse things.

I don't think we're pretty much a stalemate, I think at least we know that tests dealing with Psychic powers do not repeat, that's about it.

Yeah that seems about right lol

Hollismason wrote:
You can't use stealth more than once because it specifically states that it doesn't stack in the "special abilities" and have their own rules. That's why Stealth doesn't stack.

Also, I'd like to point out that by your "logic" you cannot cast a Malediction more than once on a army. So even if it wasn't Terrify, you couldn't use Malediction powers from the Sanctic discipline more than once on a Daemonic Unit.

Now surely Mr wall of text devoted to 'different' , where you take the same power and treat it as different.

How is stealth not different from stealth ruins? How is stealth ruins not a different source than a unit having stealth?

also under special rules "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"

Maybe you should pick to one definition for 'different' that you can use for the entire rule book. Because clearly and in context with all the rules, it's all in the name.

And please show how my logic leads to one malediction per army? that's just absurd.

If you were to think honestly on your logic you would see how you are arguing for ork banners to stack, which you say they don't. you're arguing for stealth to stack, which you say they don't. And you're arguing for maledictions to stack, which you accept. There is only one answer to all 3 in context with the rules, and RAW. I have one answer and it's 'no' to all.

This simply doesn't compute from an English perspective as a word cannot have its word in its meaning. 

Is English not your first language? Because that might explain why you are so far out with simple concepts (like who can and can't cast the same power). We know what they mean by the same power. So we know what they mean by different power. This is how rules work they explain how things are treated. We know the phrase "same power" is a power that has the same name. Therefore we know that different power is a power that does not have the same name.

It really is that simple.

Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?

 FlingitNow wrote:

This simply doesn't compute from an English perspective as a word cannot have its word in its meaning. 

Is English not your first language? Because that might explain why you are so far out with simple concepts (like who can and can't cast the same power). We know what they mean by the same power. So we know what they mean by different power. This is how rules work they explain how things are treated. We know the phrase "same power" is a power that has the same name. Therefore we know that different power is a power that does not have the same name.

It really is that simple.

No need to be rude. I understand what it says very well thank you.

You cannot use the same power with the same Psyker. This it directly states. Therefore, if you want to cast the same power, you must use a different Psyker. It does not say that different Psykers cannot cast the same power, nor does it say that these same powers, used by different Psykers cannot target the same thing.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
You can't use stealth more than once because it specifically states that it doesn't stack in the "special abilities" and have their own rules. That's why Stealth doesn't stack.

Also, I'd like to point out that by your "logic" you cannot cast a Malediction more than once on a army. So even if it wasn't Terrify, you couldn't use Malediction powers from the Sanctic discipline more than once on a Daemonic Unit.

Now surely Mr wall of text devoted to 'different' , where you take the same power and treat it as different.

How is stealth not different from stealth ruins? How is stealth ruins not a different source than a unit having stealth?

also under special rules "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative"

Maybe you should pick to one definition for 'different' that you can use for the entire rule book. Because clearly and in context with all the rules, it's all in the name.

And please show how my logic leads to one malediction per army? that's just absurd.

If you were to think honestly on your logic you would see how you are arguing for ork banners to stack, which you say they don't. you're arguing for stealth to stack, which you say they don't. And you're arguing for maledictions to stack, which you accept. There is only one answer to all 3 in context with the rules, and RAW. I have one answer and it's 'no' to all.

Actually it's pretty clear on special abilities:

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.

I have no idea what you are actually referring to as Ruins Stealth, do you mean models that gain the Stealth Special rule when they are in ruins. Cause there is no special rule called Ruins Stealth.



Is that what you mean?

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?

Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.

Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".

So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You cannot use the same power with the same Psyker. This it directly states. Therefore, if you want to cast the same power, you must use a different Psyker.

Seriously again? I've already pointed out this is not true. Please read the actual rules in question if you're going to argue them. If you cannot understand such simple phrases that illustrate that this is not correct then please refrain from arguing rules that you don't understand.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?

Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.

Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".

So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?

This makes no sense. Like literally it doesn't make sense, it's just words that are in sentences that have punctuation.

Same and Different in context of Psychic Powers and usrs refers to same/different name <- uh what?

Just check the wording for Blessings with has further clarifying texts.

Like seriously are you just purposefully trying to be cryptic?

text removed.


Reds8n

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?

Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.

Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".

So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You cannot use the same power with the same Psyker. This it directly states. Therefore, if you want to cast the same power, you must use a different Psyker.

Seriously again? I've already pointed out this is not true. Please read the actual rules in question if you're going to argue them. If you cannot understand such simple phrases that illustrate that this is not correct then please refrain from arguing rules that you don't understand.

The wording in the text is in the Blessing section because it refers to Blessings, not to Maledictions, otherwise it would be there as well. What you have done is applied the wording under one specific heading to a completely different one and assumed that this is what was intended by the writers, without knowing whether this is the case or not.

The bolded line under Manifesting Psychic Powers, the one at the end of the paragraph states, "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase."

This is specifically stating A unit, not all units, not all units in the army, but a single unit. Therefore, a separate, Different unit can use the same power.

I've literally only used that language the entire time I've been posting. You do realise that don't you?

text removed.

Reds8n

The wording in the text is in the Blessing section because it refers to Blessings, not to Maledictions, otherwise it would be there as well. What you have done is applied the wording under one specific heading to a completely different one and assumed that this is what was intended by the writers, without knowing whether this is the case or not. 

That is not what I'm doing. I'm seeing the exact identical use of phrases repeated through out the rules and assuming consistent use. That the rules define how language is used (that model is not a reference to a physical model but to the rules defined term model for example). Its called understanding the context of the rules.

The bolded line under Manifesting Psychic Powers, the one at the end of the paragraph states, "no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per Psychic phase." 

This is specifically stating A unit, not all units, not all units in the army, but a single unit. Therefore, a separate, Different unit can use the same power. 

Finally you get it right. Why did you keep insisting it was by Psyker rather than by unit even after I had pointed out to you it is by unit not by Psyker?

American English or British English. They are similar but vastly different things.

Which one is the rulebook written in?

Does your book demand fealty and loyal subjugation and try to recapture the Falklands? - British English
Does your book come with a 32 oz. Soft Drink? American English

At least that's how I tell them apart.

Hollismason wrote:
Does your book demand fealty and loyal subjugation and try to recapture the Falklands? - British English.

Crap! Is that what my book is doing? Between demands for tea and crumpets and complaints about how ghastly its wife is, I've no idea what my book has been trying to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Wait a sec. If "different" and "same" refers to the name, and the "same" unit cannot attempt to cast the same power, does that mean 2 Farseers, each by themselves can not attempt to cast Doom on two different units?

Same and different in context of Psychic Powers (and USRs) refers to same/different name. That is literally in the rules. Just check the wording for Blessings which has further clarifying text.

Also same is not used in the context for Psyker unit it says "select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase".

So please read the rules relevant to your strawman before trying it, or better yet use actual rules to argue the point at hand?

If my assumption is incorrect I apologize. I was going off (somewhere probably this thread) what someone said about the same unit not casting the same power multiple times.

The one thing I never understood with this argument of "different", from some, in terms of maledictions in 6th, and apparently now again in 7th, is if that the word is only being used to indicate a different source of the malediction. In 6th, and again in 7th, no psyker can use, or even attempt to use, the same power twice in a turn, then there is no need to define the power as being "different" in this manner, since it is impossible for there to be a "same". I understand that there may have been a possibility that Eldrad in the 5th ed codex might have been able to do this, although I have seen that disputed in these forums. But, even if Eldrad could so such a thing, its very unlikely that GW would have written such a caveat into the stacking of maledictions due to the special ability of one character.

If they wanted maledictions from different sources, with the same name, to stack, they simply had to leave out the word "different" in that sentence in the BRB. Since they didn't, and there was only 1 character in the entire system that might have been able to try to cast the same power twice, its pretty strong indication that the word different means a power with a different name.

Personal soapbox. Arguing RAW without trying to understand intent is harmful to the gameplay and just results, not in competitive play, but in cutthroat competition that is harmful to the hobby and is even more likely to drive off new players then the expense of the game. But GW does have a lot to answer for sloppy rules writing and extremely poorly balanced codices.

Rumbleguts wrote:
. Arguing RAW without trying to understand intent is harmful to the gameplay and just results, not in competitive play, but in cutthroat competition that is harmful to the hobby and is even more likely to drive off new players then the expense of the game. But GW does have a lot to answer for sloppy rules writing and extremely poorly balanced codices.

Clear RAW results in people not having to resort to trying to divine intent...

 FlingitNow wrote:


Finally you get it right. Why did you keep insisting it was by Psyker rather than by unit even after I had pointed out to you it is by unit not by Psyker?

Because a Psyker is a unit isn't it? Or did I miss something in my reading of the rules? What I mean is, it counts as a unit on the board. As I understand it, a unit can be made up of one model, that is an Independent Character or a group of models to form a unit. I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall this.

You're correct a Psyker or Independent Character is in fact a unit. Now there are a huge number of problems with Pskyers being in the same unit but that isn't this argument.

I dunno, I'm kind of coming around to the not stacking for balance maybe. That's the only real argument against it that and the specified grammatical arguments.

We've had nine pages of really decent argument, I just don't think anyoen one side or the other could argue whether or not what different means because they didn't use the same wording as blessing so it's one of those , wait for the fact.

Different can mean what I've stated.

Different can mean what others have stated, I can't debate their interpretation of Different because it is a legitimate argument.

On one hand we have the difference in word usage from Blessings to Maledictions, which is unusual.

On the other hand we have some game play impacts that could possibly be overpowered.

I've argued my points and others have as well. I just don't think this is going anywhere it's basically HYWPI at this point without a clear FAQ for it.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
You've completely misread my argument, I have never claimed that multiple uses of Terrify are different powers, I claimed that through following the rules for manifesting psychic powers you can have 2 of them in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple leadership modifiers.

Yes, but they didn't have the same sort of access to education and information 8000 years ago as we do today, I like to think most English speaking wargamers have a firm enough grasp on the English language that their opinion on the interpretation of what "the effect" refers to should have some weight.

I understand what you're saying, I was pointing out that you can have 3 different sources of stealth, but you only get to use stealth once for your unit. following the rules as you read them with regard to stealth would lead to have 3 manifestations of stealth in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple stealth bonuses. Or 3 manifestations of a banner in effect on the same unit, leading to multiple WS bonuses.

contextually and RAW no matter how many of the same power, special rule, or wargear you have, they do not stack, unless told specifically that they do..

Wargear have a variety of rules preventing you from applying the same wargear cumulatively (WAAAgh banners have their non-cumulative wording, you can not attack with two Power Fists simultaneously, it is impossible to have 2 of the same Mark of Chaos on the same model, etc.)

Special Rules have a rule that explicitly states a model can only gain the benefit of the same special rule once

Blessings state that the benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn.

No such rule exists for maledictions, which is where your argument falls short.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Finally you get it right. Why did you keep insisting it was by Psyker rather than by unit even after I had pointed out to you it is by unit not by Psyker?

Because a Psyker is a unit isn't it? Or did I miss something in my reading of the rules? What I mean is, it counts as a unit on the board. As I understand it, a unit can be made up of one model, that is an Independent Character or a group of models to form a unit. I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall this.

You can have multiple Psykers in the same unit with potentially the same power if one of them attempts to manifest a power then another can't go for the same power (e.g. a unit of Warlocks all have Conceal/Reveal).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

We've had nine pages of really decent argument, I just don't think anyoen one side or the other could argue whether or not what different means because they didn't use the same wording as blessing so it's one of those , wait for the fact. 

Different can mean what I've stated. 

Different can mean what others have stated, I can't debate their interpretation of Different because it is a legitimate argument. 

On one hand we have the difference in word usage from Blessings to Maledictions, which is unusual. 

On the other hand we have some game play impacts that could possibly be overpowered. 

I've argued my points and others have as well. I just don't think this is going anywhere it's basically HYWPI at this point without a clearFAQ for it.

1) Different can only mean what you said it does if you completely ignore the context in which the rules are written (notice how neither Nos nor PR are arguing for your definition of different). Also by your definition the word is entirely redundant and its presence only serves to make the rule less clear.

2) So the debate on the meaning of different isn't really a debate I have cited why my interpretation must be correct and your argumemt is that different could mean something else to every single time they have used the word in a similar context in the entire book because...

3) Yeah GW write rules sloppily and are often guilty of copy paste fail. For example the BA vehicle FaQ at the start of 7th. Notice however what they say does stack is identical wording meaning that it means the same thing. They don't clarify what doesn't stack though. Which either means all the stacking rules are redundant and the Malediction one is intentionally misleading or the same Malediction does not have permission to stack with itself.

4) Balance is not really the issue the intent of the rule is crystal clear. The RaW of thr rule is evidently less clear though also supports the actual rule in this case. So you can houserule that they stack and even claim that houserule is RaW if you want. Or you can play by the actual rules which are also the RaW that they don't stack. The choice is yours.