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.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.

About from the basic psychic rules allowing you to resolve a malediction on an enemy unit?

I have a unit my opponent has cast Terrify on, is it still an enemy unit? Yes -> He has permission to Terrify it.

And how many morale checks does that unit make at the end of the turn? there is your answer.

And the answer is once.

How many fear tests does that unit make?

And again, the answer is once.

so whilst this power is in effect, you only use the effect once. ergo it is non cumulative. It is one effect, doing 3 different things, if 2 out of 3 are non cumulative, why would you think 1 of 3 is? There is absolute no rule support to say that it is cumulative.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.

About from the basic psychic rules allowing you to resolve a malediction on an enemy unit?

I have a unit my opponent has cast Terrify on, is it still an enemy unit? Yes -> He has permission to Terrify it.

Permission to cast it several times, is not permission to have it's effects apply multiple times.

sirlynchmob wrote:And how many morale checks does that unit make at the end of the turn? there is your answer.

And the answer is once.

I am unsure, I can see arguments for both sides and while I'm leaning towards only 1 because other end of phase effects tend to be once only I recognise that is RAI, not RAW.

How many fear tests does that unit make?

And again, the answer is once.

Correct, because "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."
- 1 to leadership is not a special rule though, it is a modifier.

so whilst this power is in effect, you only use the effect once. ergo it is non cumulative. It is one effect, doing 3 different things, if 2 out of 3 are non cumulative, why would you think 1 of 3 is? There is absolute no rule support to say that it is cumulative.

Because one of the effects is a modifier which are explicitly cumulative according to the multiple modifiers rules.

chanceafs wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.

About from the basic psychic rules allowing you to resolve a malediction on an enemy unit?

I have a unit my opponent has cast Terrify on, is it still an enemy unit? Yes -> He has permission to Terrify it.

Permission to cast it several times, is not permission to have it's effects apply multiple times.

How about permission to resolve it according to its entry? Does that rule stop working when the unit has already been Terrified?
If so, could you prove your position using relevant rules quotes?

@princeraven

If you're sticking with that psychic powers are not special rules still, then you still do not have permission to have a modifier.

wargear and special rules can modify characteristics.

You also don't have a combination of rules or wargear, you have one rule that you are incorrectly trying to apply more than once. One rule is not a combination of rules.

so RAW terrify can't modify leadership, or it can modify it once. It's your choice. There is no rule anywhere that lets you apply 1/3 of a rule cumulatively. Nor even a hint at any rule that suggest maledictions are cumulative.

"Wargear and special rules can modify characteristics" doesn't mean the effects of psychic powers can not.

I do have a combination of rules, I have one Terrify and another Terrify which both have a -1 leadership modifier I am combining onto a single unit.

@sirlyn, I see your point, but there is also no rule saying they are not cumulative, which brings us to the current issue.

Best advice, treat it like blessings and have them not stack until you hear otherwise or treat them like they do until you hear otherwise. Or do the old fashioned way, roll a die

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Wargear and special rules can modify characteristics" doesn't mean the effects of psychic powers can not.

I do have a combination of rules, I have one Terrify and another Terrify which both have a -1 leadership modifier I am combining onto a single unit.

And no rule stating that -1 leadership is cumulative. Permissive rules set.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
"Wargear and special rules can modify characteristics" doesn't mean the effects of psychic powers can not.

I do have a combination of rules, I have one Terrify and another Terrify which both have a -1 leadership modifier I am combining onto a single unit.

well you should mark your posts as HIWPI then, as you are no where near RAW.

Where is psychics powers permission to modify characteristics? as I've shown they can't RAW. Because wargear & special rules does mean psychic powers can't as they have no permission to do so.

one rule is not a combination of rules. so again that's not RAW

The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.

Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?

It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.

You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.

Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?

It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.

You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.

Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.

Hollismason wrote:

So now I don't know what the hell.
Ugh I feel like writing a letter to GW.

Generally, I would not recommend a written letter when the issue at hand is the recipients inability to read and write.
Maybe try drawing them a picture. With crayons. Or finger paint.

-Matt

 TheCustomLime wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.

Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?

It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.

You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.

Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.

That is the general tone of many of these threads tbh. Unless you can cite an explicit rule in the text i.e., that explicit rules is what gives you permission, then you can't do anything.

Ok, hypothetical situation, I have 3 warp charges remaining and a Farseer with Terrify that has line of sight to an enemy Tactical Squad unit 20" away which has already had Terrify used on it. Let's follow the steps:
1. "Select Psyker and Psychic Power. Unless you have 0 Warp Charge points remaining, select one of your Psyker units, then nominate a psychic power known to that unit that you wish to manifest." - I select my Psyker and and nominate Terrify as the power I wish to manifest.
2. Declare Target. If the power requires a target, choose it at this point." - Now, Maledictions require line of sight, Terrify has a range of 24, and I can only use Maledictions on enemy units. It just so happens that my opponent's Tactical Squad fulfils all those requirements, so I declare said unit as my target.
3. "Take Psychic Test. The Psyker must now expend Warp Charge points and attempt to harness them by taking a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails and nothing further happens. If two or more 6s are rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately." I expend all 3 warp charges and get 1, 4, 6, so I don't suffer Perils of the Warp, and I pass the test.
4. "Deny the Witch. If the Psychic test was passed, one of the enemy targets gets a chance to expend Warp Charge points to nullify the power by taking a Deny the Witch test. If the psychic power does not target an enemy unit, your opponent can still attempt to Deny the Witch, but will not be able to use any bonuses. In either case, if the Deny the Witch test is passed, the psychic power does not manifest and nothing further happens." - My opponent now attempts to deny with 5 warp charges, his unit has no Psyker or other DtW boost, so with a result of 2, 3, 3, 5, 6 he only gets success and fails the test.
5. "Resolve Psychic Power. Assuming the Psychic test was passed and the power was not negated by a successful Deny the Witch test, it is now resolved." - Now here's where it gets tricky, how do we resolve the power? Ah, I see: " Resolve its effects according to the instructions in its entry." So we go to the entry for Terrify:
"Terrify is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target has a -1 penalty to their Leadership..."
and apply the effects to the unit, I'll focus on the -1 penalty.
6. So now that the power is resolved we have a -1 penalty being applied to the units leadership, but the unit already has a -1 penalty from the previous Terrify, giving us multiple modifiers to the leadership characteristic of each model. Looks like we need the Multiple Modifier rules:
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
So, following the Multiple Modifiers rules, we take the Tactical Marine's leadership of 8, and apply any multipliers, we have no multipliers so let's continue. Next we apply any additions or subtractions, we have subtractions her, so lets apply those: 8-1-1=6, now we apply set modifiers, but we don't have enough, so we're done, each Tactical Marine has a modified leadership score of 6.

Any questions?

Zodiark wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.

Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?

It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.

You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.

Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.

That is the general tone of many of these threads tbh. Unless you can cite an explicit rule in the text i.e., that explicit rules is what gives you permission, then you can't do anything.

Yeah, but the problem here is that you already have permission from the rules to cast multiple maledictions on the same unit. You also have permission to modify the unit's leadership and permission to stack the effects of Maledictions. Since there is no stipulation that the effects of multiple copies of the same power cannot stack that means you can. He asserts that since the rules state that you can't means you can't do that even though there is no rule preventing you from doing so.

See, in a permissive rules set (A phrase I despise since it's not a completely accurate description of 40k) like Warhammer 40,000 there is a difference between making up rules out of nowhere and committing actions that are in the parameters set by the rules but not covered in their exact wording.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The psychic power itself states it imposes a leadership penalty, and as a more advanced rule would override the non-existent restriction that only wargear and special rules can.
I don't need permission to use the permission I already have, that is not how a permissive ruleset operates.

Non existent? LOL, do you even have a rule book? Have you read it?

It's not an advance rule, it's part of the basic rules like the rules for modifiers.

You need permission for terrify to be cumulative with itself. if you say it's RAW than please post the page # where it specifically says so. And you need permission to only apply 1/3 of a power cumulatively. if it was cumulative like you insist based on HYWPI, then why just the one fear test? why just the one morale test? it's all part of the one power while it's in effect.

Where is it stated that you require explicit permission from the rules to do anything? If it isn't then you are applying external rules to this argument.

That is the general tone of many of these threads tbh. Unless you can cite an explicit rule in the text i.e., that explicit rules is what gives you permission, then you can't do anything.

Yeah, but the problem here is that you already have permission from the rules to cast multiple maledictions on the same unit. You also have permission to modify the unit's leadership and permission to stack the effects of Maledictions. Since there is no stipulation that the effects of multiple copies of the same power cannot stack that means you can. He asserts that since the rules state that you can't means you can't do that even though there is no rule preventing you from doing so.

See, in a permissive rules set (A phrase I despise since it's not a completely accurate description of 40k) like Warhammer 40,000 there is a difference between making up rules out of nowhere and committing actions that are in the parameters set by the rules but not covered in their exact wording.

I totally agree with your point, the maledictions how I read the rulings do indeed stack. I see nothing contradicting this in the BRB, so going with RAW they stacked until proven otherwise.


As for the permissive ruleset, what it means is GW doesn't care enough to intervene and give an exact answer so do whatever makes you happy in that game, which also, following this line of logic, makes this entire TMDC pointless as GW won't change anything as the permissive ruleset is designed to let players play how they want.

and 5 is where you go wrong, why focus on the -1 ld? why not focus on the fear test, why not the morale test. How many fear tests does a unit with 2 terrifies take? if you can't account for the whole power, just admit you're stating HIWPI.

If the power was truly cumulative as you claim, yet can't prove, why not make 2 fear tests and 2 morale tests. You're claim is the whole of terrify is cumulative, so why claim just the LD is cumulative without the other parts of the power. This just show how wrong your conclusion is.

As terrify is not a piece of wargear nor a special rule, you never get the first -1 modifier RAW. You're failure to recognize this puts your conclusion further into question, because you are not basing your opinion on RAW. In the end, RAW the marines are left at LD 8.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the thing with the fear tests is that the unit that has to take them only has to take it once? As in, nothing stops you from applying multiple fear test requirements on the same unit but it only ever has to take it once? That means that there is nothing stopping you from modifying it's leadership further than a -1 because the rule doesn't state that you discard other effects that came with whatever triggered the fear test. It's sort of like grounding tests with monstrous creatures. Just because it only has to take it once doesn't mean you can only ever count one wound against it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
and 5 is where you go wrong, why focus on the -1 ld? why not focus on the fear test, why not the morale test. How many fear tests does a unit with 2 terrifies take? if you can't account for the whole power, just admit you're stating HIWPI.

Because you can't treat enemies as having Fear multiple times, you either do or you don't, there is no Double Fear special rule you can treat them as having.
The other one I'm not 100% on my stance, so it would hypocritical for me to argue for it.

If the power was truly cumulative as you claim, yet can't prove, why not make 2 fear tests and 2 morale tests. You're claim is the whole of terrify is cumulative, so why claim just the LD is cumulative without the other parts of the power. This just show how wrong your conclusion is.

I claim that the modifier is cumulative because that is the only effect of the power I am 100% convinced will be cumulative when you have mulitple Terrifies on the same unit.
I don't see a rule that says every effect of a power has to be cumulative otherwise none of them are.

As terrify is not a piece of wargear nor a special rule, you never get the first -1 modifier RAW. You're failure to recognize this puts your conclusion further into question, because you are not basing your opinion on RAW. In the end, RAW the marines are left at LD 8.

There is no rule that states the effects of psychic powers may not modify characteristics or that only wargear and special rules may modify characteristics, but there are many psychic powers that say they do, in fact, modify characteristics. Your failure to recognise this puts your conclusions into question, as you are basing your opinion on logical fallacies, especially the one known as denying the antecedent. In the end, according to RAW, the marines are left at LD 6.

Yes psychic powers do modify characteristics, because they bestow special rules like terrify on a unit. Special rules can modify characteristics. We are told multiple times that psychic powers can bestow special rules.

As a special rule, they are by default non cumulative as we are reminded of under resolving the power. And we see there that multiple different powers are cumulative. Like all special rules, a model can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once.

This power, is one power (A) and while A is in effect you get XYZ. If A is cumulative you should end up with XXYYZZ, if not you are admitting it is non cumulative. Or you can quote a rule as to what parts are cumulative and how.

When you argue that it is not a special rule, you forbid it from modifying characteristics. You need a rule to say psychic powers can modify characteristics a absence of a rule is not permission. We are told what can modify characteristics and powers are not listed amongst them.

so either terrify bestows a special rule as a singular power, or it does not have permission to modify characteristics. So it's -1 or 0, Those are the choices.

So which special rule is the -1 penalty from Terrify, and in which book can I find it listed as a special rule?

You do get XXYYZZ, except X is not cumulative with X, and Y may or may not be cumulative with Y, I'm still waiting for a discussion on that, so you end up with XYZZ or XYYZZ depending on whether the unit takes multiple tests at the end of the phase or not.

Clearly you didn't notice how I demonstrated permission to resolve the power according to its entry, which includes a characteristic modifier, so in the absence of a rule denying that permission I can, in fact, apply said modifier.

Interesting false dichotomy you've got there, I'll take a third option: Terrify bestows 3 effects to the unit, some of which are cumulative and some of which aren't.

Basically this is the same discussion as in 6th but with even more willful ignorance on the pro stacking side as they are bitter that they got proved wrong with the wording change on blessings so are going after any weakness in wording they can find to try to cheat an advantage or argue for the sake of it.

I'll sum up both sides:

What was agreed, due to rules on casting the same power multiple times, that different means not the same. As the same means the same named power, different therefore means differently named powers.

Pro Stacking means you believe the following:

1) All successfully manifested powers have permission to resolve this permission is inherently cumulative not concurrent.
2) therefore permission to resolve = permission to stack effects. Thus multiple modifiers come into play.
3) The rule about how Maledictions stack is a reminder and does nothing.
4) GW specifically called out different just to confuse the reader. This is the only incidence of GW doing a partial intentionally misleading "reminder" but we are allowed to be willfully ignorant of that.
5) The scattered instances of powers specifically calling out that they stack with themselves are also all reminders. GW likes wasting paper to intentionally mislead the reader.

Against Stacking side believes:

1) Successfully manifesting a power puts that power into effect. Unless instructed otherwise it resolves concurrently with itself. Wording such as "whilst this power is in effect..." means that casting the power once twice or a thousand times the power is still in effect.
2) Thus we require specific permission to stack.
3) The rule on how Maledictions stack tells us that different powers stack hence we have specific permission for different powers to stack but not repeated instances of the same power.
4) Further evidence to support this is found for instance inthe CSM Codex where certain specific powers call out that they stack with themselves (symphony of pain). We believe these are again not reminders but actual rule exceptions.

Believe what you will here's all the evidence.

It's funny, wilful ignorance is exactly how I'd describe the anti-stacking side, especially now that we have a rule that specifically calls out Blessings as being non-cumulative with themselves, while Maledictions go unchanged.

I've already written that with simple word substitution that its obvious what was intended. It's pretty clear to me that they stack.
Why does word substitution specifically work in this instance? Because Blessing and Malediction are category names of Psychic Power Types, but since they are categories you can simply substitute the Word Blessing for any spell that is a blessing and it's going to read the same way. It's like saying Cars have wheels. Cars is a category of things, I can replace by simply saying, Toyotas , Hondas .... have wheels.

However I'll do this one more time. Let's say there is no such thing as Blessings and instead each individual spell that was previously a blessing had instead its own specific rule written out like this.

Blessings

The benefit of any one particular Forewarning 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).

As you can see you can substitute or write out every single, Blessing Psychic Power in that instance and the phrase stays the same, you could even word swap it other places and it still lays out clearly that you cannot have more than one Forewarning affect a unit.


Now let's look at Maledictions.

Malediction

Terrify can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Terrifies are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).

Now with other words

Enfeeble can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Enfeebles are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).


We could do that all day and it becomes perfectly clear that it works that way because of the fact that those are Categories, they didn't make a rule for each individual spell in the game because that would be exhaustive. They don't need to , they know that when they say Blessings, you know that it refers to all spells labeled Blessings.

This is literally arguing with the written English language and how it functions.

Hollismason wrote:
I've already written that with simple word substitution that its obvious what was intended. It's pretty clear to me that they stack.
Why does word substitution specifically work in this instance? Because Blessing and Malediction are category names of Psychic Power Types, but since they are categories you can simply substitute the Word Blessing for any spell that is a blessing and it's going to read the same way. It's like saying Cars have wheels. Cars is a category of things, I can replace by simply saying, Toyotas , Hondas .... have wheels.

However I'll do this one more time.

Blessings

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

As you can see you can subsitute or write out every single, Blessing Psychic Power in that instance and the phrase stays the same, you could even write. It's going to be read the same thing, because Blessing is a general Category that includes everything that we label as blessing.


Now let's look at Maledictions.

Malediction

Terrify can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Terrifies are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).

Now with other words

Enfeeble can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Enfeebles are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).


We could do that all day and it becomes perfectly clear that it works that way because of the fact that those are Categories, they didn't make a rule for each individual spell in the game because that would be exhaustive. They don't need to , they know that when they say Blessings, you know that it refers to all spells labeled Blessings.

This is literally arguing with the written English language and how it functions.

The key thing to remember that people simply choose not to acknowledge for the most part. All rules in the book work as written UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.[i][u]

This applies to resolving anything. You resolve and do everything exactly as described in the text. Since there is nothing specifically stating that maledictions do not stack, they do stack. Until the dissenting side can provide specific text proving otherwise, their argument is done.

This is literally arguing with the written English language and how it functions.

I love this part because it is completely true. We are arguing over how words are written and how we each understand those rules to be written, all of which are interpretations, none of it fact except for obvious conclusions, one being that if a rule doesn't state you cannot do something then you can and if it states you can do something, nothing prevents you from not doing it.

It actually states pretty clearly that Maledictions do stack ,but yeah it's a weird thing that people would argue.

It's very very easy to tell that with just simple word substitution.

Hollismason wrote:
It actually states pretty clearly that Maledictions do stack ,but yeah it's a weird thing that people would argue.

It's very very easy to tell that with just simple word substitution.

Yeah I can see the issue. I figured that they would stack when I first read them as Blessings specifically state that they do not but Maledictions say nothing of the sort.

It's actually really important to not ignore that word "particular" in that sentence.

If all blessings were instead called Forewarning but each had different rules, that sentence would still make sense. With word substitution it still makes sense, because there's only one spell named Forewarning and it's effects can only be applied once even if you cast it twice. It's really clear to me they intended and as it is written that Maledictions do in fact stack.

You can in fact cast the same blessing on a unit twice, it's effects just don't work twice.

You can in fact cast the same maledictions on the same unit twice , it's affects are cumulative.


Terrify is particularly interesting because what happens when you cast it on a unit that is in Combat? And they fail their test?

Does the unit fighting them get to make a sweeping advance? Do they get to roll to wipe them out?

Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:

Cars are made by manufacturers. Remember different cars are made by different manufacturers.

We substitute in Toyotas and the sentence changes meaning:

Toyotas are made by manufacturers. Remember different Toyotas are made by different manufacturers.

This is exactly what you are doing with your substitution. The different in the Maledictions stacking rule is referring to differently named powers not different instances of the same power.

Once again look at Terrify. "Whilst this power is in effect" so if you cast it once twice or a thousand times the power is in effect thus the unit suffers a single -1 Ld takes a single morale check etc. It is a true false statement. Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Word substitution doesn't work here because different changes meaning when you use substitutions. For example:

Unless you have specific permission to stack the same psychic powers with themselves or permission to stacl Terrify with itself then you can't. The end, full stop.

Sorry but the opposite works as well. Unless there is something that specifically states that they do not stack, as is the case with Blessings that specifically state that they cannot, then you can. The End.

Have a nice day!