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.

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?