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.

Dominate, the malediction from Telepathy, makes a unit take a Ld test for a variety of actions, and if it fails, it can't do that action.

Would more than one Dominate cause multiple tests?

I imagine it wouldn't, in the same way that multiple pinning attacks only cause the one check

I think 'no.' If you have any Dominate effects on you, you take a check, no matter how many times the power has been applied. Personal opinion.

This is a tricky one. Relevant quotes - page 68:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Page 147, the power itself:
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada).

The question here really is, can the power accumulate? Would you class taking more than one Leadership test as cumulative?
For me I say yes, you can. To borrow some gaming terminology here for a moment - you can view powers as either being secondary/tertiary additions of the same casting, or as being separate instances of the same power. I'm inclined to go for the latter because each casting is treated as separate in all other regards (the Ld test to cast, the DtW roll, the opportunity to select a different target...)

Note that I'm aware this definition isn't defined in the rules and could really swing either way. This is just how I see it common sense in my head.

Taking a LD test for every action is not an effect that can stack in the way that characteristics penalties can.

Besides, the attempt succeeds after the LD test. Can you take another LD test since the attempt already succeeded?

If you have taken a leadership test, you have taken a leadership test. Nothing requires multiple tests - taking one satisfies the requirement in dominate.

Not true on only having to take one Leadership test, generally. You're mixing this up with Morale tests which are once per phase, if I recall correctly. That's why Pinning has to be separately specified as once only as well.
For an example of a power that can force multiple Leadership rolls from multiple casts (though, admittedly, not strictly a true Leadership *test*), check out Terrify from Telepathy.

(added) ok, now I have the book to hand, I've double-checked it. Ld tests are on page 7, Morale tests on page 29. Even Morale tests aren't overall restricted to one-per-phase, it's just that specific kinds are only performed at the end of the phase. Also changed the example power above - Terrify causes an *immediate* Morale test, so you can not only take tests from the same power from different sources, but even force more than one Morale check from other sources per phase using it.

To sum up - there's nothing stopping Ld tests from stacking, but the jury's still out as to whether Dominate's wording means it should stack or not.

"bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" Page 68 BRB

This seems to indicate that if two maledictions are not different, they do not stack.

 Super Ready wrote:
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada).

If there are two Dominates, passing one LD check satisfies both of the Dominates.

Is Dominate in effect? (A Yes, twice)

Have you passed a LD check (Yes once).

Did the unit "pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada)." (Yes, both conditions fulfilled).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada).

If there are two Dominates, passing one LD check satisfies both of the Dominates.

Is Dominate in effect? (A Yes, twice)

Have you passed a LD check (Yes once).

Did the unit "pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada)." (Yes, both conditions fulfilled).

Dominate also says if the check is failed, the action can't be taken. So it really does matter if they have to take more than one test.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada).

If there are two Dominates, passing one LD check satisfies both of the Dominates.

Is Dominate in effect? (A Yes, twice)

Have you passed a LD check (Yes once).

Did the unit "pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada)." (Yes, both conditions fulfilled).

Dominate also says if the check is failed, the action can't be taken. So it really does matter if they have to take more than one test.

Except that one pass satisfies both the castings.

"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to move, shoot, Run or declare a charge"

The unit is attempting to move. it passes a LD check then it has fulfilled the condition of each time the unit attempts to move... It can only move once per phase, so each time the unit attempt this (Once) then it has to pass A LD check.

Since the unit can only move once, it must only pass one LD check...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
"Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit must pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada).

If there are two Dominates, passing one LD check satisfies both of the Dominates.

Is Dominate in effect? (A Yes, twice)

Have you passed a LD check (Yes once).

Did the unit "pass a Leadership test each time it attempts to..." (etc etc, yada yada)." (Yes, both conditions fulfilled).

Since there is no way for one psyker to apply the same malediction twice ( I think there maybe an exception for one elder model) when the rule says different powers it would have to be referring to powers with a different name. Otherwise, they would just say that the effects of a malediction stack and not say different maledictions.

Irrelevant, as that is not a restriction on two of the same stacking, which you already have permission to do in general.

In this case Dominate, a bit like Waagh banners etc, is satisifed with 1 test for 1+ castings.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Irrelevant, as that is not a restriction on two of the same stacking, which you already have permission to do in general.

In this case Dominate, a bit like Waagh banners etc, is satisifed with 1 test for 1+ castings.

Where is this permission given?

The rules for psychic powers, which state you resolve their effects. Find a rule saying you cannot do so when the power is the same power as another one

Functionally the other acts as a reminder

nosferatu1001 wrote:The rules for psychic powers, which state you resolve their effects. Find a rule saying you cannot do so when the power is the same power as another one

Functionally the other acts as a reminder

Abandon wrote:"bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative" Page 68 BRB

This seems to indicate that if two maledictions are not different, they do not stack.

Incorrect. Reread it.

I have already proven they stack - because the rules for psychic powers gives you permission for both castings to resolve.

Now find something that removes that restriction. You cannot do so? Then they stack

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect. Reread it.

I have already proven they stack - because the rules for psychic powers gives you permission for both castings to resolve.

Now find something that removes that restriction. You cannot do so? Then they stack

So.. your saying that when they tell us that different maledictions stack that they are not implying by omission that maledictions that are not different do not stack... interesting. Have fun with that.

How do you classify the word "different" in this case? Different powers, or different castings which may well be the same power?
Also, don't forget. Just because A=B, doesn't necessarily mean C=/=B. Omission is hardly strict ruling in this case.

 Super Ready wrote:
How do you classify the word "different" in this case? Different powers, or different castings which may well be the same power?
Also, don't forget. Just because A=B, doesn't necessarily mean C=/=B. Omission is hardly strict ruling in this case.

100% agree that it's not 100%

But what we do have is a statement of what maledictions stack which does not include ones that are the same. What makes a psychic power different is more debatable. I'd say any definition that would make them all different should be removed simply because their use of the word 'different' implies that some maledictions that may be active at the same time are in fact the same. This would be the case if separate 'castings' even of the same power where considered different... all maledictions would then qualify as 'different' and their phrasing would make little sense. Instead I would say only maledictions with different names are different from each other.

 Abandon wrote:

 Super Ready wrote:
How do you classify the word "different" in this case? Different powers, or different castings which may well be the same power?
Also, don't forget. Just because A=B, doesn't necessarily mean C=/=B. Omission is hardly strict ruling in this case.

100% agree that it's not 100%

But what we do have is a statement of what maledictions stack which does not include ones that are the same. What makes a psychic power different is more debatable. I'd say any definition that would make them all different should be removed simply because their use of the word 'different' implies that some maledictions that may be active at the same time are in fact the same. This would be the case if separate 'castings' even of the same power where considered different... all maledictions would then qualify as 'different' and their phrasing would make little sense. Instead I would say only maledictions with different names are different from each other.

I would take the opposite standpoint, mainly because there aren't any maledictions that I can think of (may have forgotten some) that have different names but the same effect.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you have taken a leadership test, you have taken a leadership test. Nothing requires multiple tests - taking one satisfies the requirement in dominate.

No, taking one satisfies the requirement for multiple tests during a single phase.

I believe you would have to test if you ran, then test again if you snapped shots off using Zephyr's grace from the Ethereal in the Tau Codex.

It says "each time it attempts to".

Attempting to run is one time, attempting to shoot is another time, so you test twice, even though it's the same phase.

If you fail the first test, you may not do the second, however.

Abandon - you are committing a fairly common fallacy of excluded middle - you are assuming that A->B must mean that !A->!B. That is entirely false.

Have fun with assuming a reminder is anything other than a rmeinder, and turning it into something else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Abandon - you are committing a fairly common fallacy of excluded middle - you are assuming that A->B must mean that !A->!B. That is entirely false.

Have fun with assuming a reminder is anything other than a rmeinder, and turning it into something else.

1. An educated guess is not an assumption. I never claimed my view on this subject is rock solid even going so far as to say it's not 100%.

2. Your out of hand dismissal of every valid point that may not entirely agree with your point of view is contrary to constructive debate and considering that is what YMDC is for I find it somewhat disrespectful towards our hosts and as I happen to like our hosts, somewhat personally offensive.

That aside, how would you define 'different' maledictions as opposed to 'same' maledictions and why?

Abandon wrote:

1. An educated guess is not an assumption. I never claimed my view on this subject is rock solid even going so far as to say it's not 100%.

2. Your out of hand dismissal of every valid point that may not entirely agree with your point of view is contrary to constructive debate and considering that is what YMDC is for I find it somewhat disrespectful towards our hosts and as I happen to like our hosts, somewhat personally offensive.

That aside, how would you define 'different' maledictions as opposed to 'same' maledictions and why?

1 an educated guess can only be made upon assumptions.
2. "His out of hand" dismissal of "every valid point" (and by point I'm generously giving you the title argument, since that means nothing.) is not so out of hand.

If I say John is tall, therefore John is tall, I've made a perfectly valid argument. A therefore A cannot have the premises true and the conclusion false. It is not sound logic, as it forces one to beg the question.

If he is accusing you of the black or white fallacy, he's doing it because your argument is not sound, not because it is invalid.

Now, you're answering his criticism with tu quoque (to answer criticism with criticism) and an ad hominem attack - you're name calling within the argument (calling him disrespectful, true or false, is name calling.). You have now committed two more fallacies.

I'm just pointing out some facts. It may be that Nos is making the fallacy fallacy and assuming an argument is wrong simply because it's a fallacy.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

Abandon wrote:

1. An educated guess is not an assumption. I never claimed my view on this subject is rock solid even going so far as to say it's not 100%.

2. Your out of hand dismissal of every valid point that may not entirely agree with your point of view is contrary to constructive debate and considering that is what YMDC is for I find it somewhat disrespectful towards our hosts and as I happen to like our hosts, somewhat personally offensive.

That aside, how would you define 'different' maledictions as opposed to 'same' maledictions and why?

1 an educated guess can only be made upon assumptions.
2. "His out of hand" dismissal of "every valid point" (and by point I'm generously giving you the title argument, since that means nothing.) is not so out of hand.

If I say John is tall, therefore John is tall, I've made a perfectly valid argument. A therefore A cannot have the premises true and the conclusion false. It is not sound logic, as it forces one to beg the question.

If he is accusing you of the black or white fallacy, he's doing it because your argument is not sound, not because it is invalid.

Now, you're answering his criticism with tu quoque (to answer criticism with criticism) and an ad hominem attack - you're name calling within the argument (calling him disrespectful, true or false, is name calling.). You have now committed two more fallacies.

I'm just pointing out some facts. It may be that Nos is making the fallacy fallacy and assuming an argument is wrong simply because it's a fallacy.

An educated guess is essentially just an informed guess and nothing more. It would become an assumption if you believed your guess to be true without proper evidence.

I don't care about if John is tall... not sure what your intended application of this part is. Did I accidentally use this type of argument somewhere I'm not seeing? If so, where? In my line of thought, the person making the argument has not seen the mistake in their argument or they would(should) not have made it. Stating their argument is logically invalid/unsound/incorrect without pointing out the relevant portion of the process one believes to be in error is somewhat less than constructive.

I said I find his dismissals disrespectful, which is an opinion about an argument. I did not say he is disrespectful. That would be an assumption based on insufficient information in addition to being rude. Also, I did not mean the quoted comment was overly dismissive though I failed to bring up the relative portions of the conversation I was referring to. I should have been more clear about that. Rather I was referring to earlier replies to myself and others.

He absolutely did point out why your argument is incorrect.
Your argument hinges on !A = !B. the only factual evidence we have is A = B. Therefore your "educated guess" is more of an assumption and an unsound argument.

Anyways...

Does the use of the words 'different maledictions' imply that 'same maledictions' exist or not in you opinions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wait. Finally got it, nevermind. Apologies all around. I'd like to say I was drunk but I don't even have that LOL.