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.

This came up in a game last week and I'm looking for opinions as the game provides no restrictions on stacking abilities. It seems that people generally allow that stacking Mystic Shields is allowed, so we allowed this since it's basically the same thing... adding +1 to attacks instead of save rolls.

The Khorne Bloodbound Bloodsecrator has an ability called Portal of Skulls. Esentially, if he doesn't move, you get two sub abilities. The one I care about is...

"Rage of Khorne: This ability affects all friendly units that have the KHORNE keyword and are within 18" of this model at the start of the combat phase. When they are selected to attack, you can add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of all melee weapons used by these units. In addition, players do not have to take battleshock tests for any units with the KHORNE keyword that is within 18" of this model at the start of the battleshock phase."

We wanted to know what would happen if you have two Bloodsecrators in range. We agreed that each instance of Rage of Khorne would add 1 to the Attacks characteristic, so being in range of two Portals would effectively add 2.

Is there any wording preventing both Bloodsecrator's abilities from having an effect? I don't see anything in the rules saying that a model/unit can't benefit from the same ability twice if the two instances are being generated from different sources. Related question... if you don't allow both abilities to have an effect, why are multiple Mystic Shields allowed?

Nothing stopping you from using multiple instance of buffs.
Bloodreavers have an especially nice synergy with a Bloodsecrator.

Generally we dont allow ability with same name to stack. Like someone can get +1 save from terrain and +1 from MS, but not +3 from 3 MS.

Aeonotakist wrote:
Generally we dont allow ability with same name to stack. Like someone can get +1 save from terrain and +1 from MS, but not +3 from 3 MS.

Is this a house rule, or your actual reading of RaW? I'm not asking if it's something you think SHOULD happen. I'm asking if you think the rules allow it. If you don't think the rules allow it, I'm asking for your reasons by way of rules citations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Nothing stopping you from using multiple instance of buffs.
Bloodreavers have an especially nice synergy with a Bloodsecrator.

It was Bloodreavers that we were looking at. I kept a unit of 20 Bloodreavers back with 2 Bloodsecrators right behind them and let the opponent come to me. When they hit the Bloodreavers, my guys had 4 attacks each (5 for the Sarge). 1 base +1 for within 12" a Khorne Totem model +1 for being within 18" of Bloodsecrator #1 +1 for being within 18" of Bloodsecrator #2. It was brutal. My Mighty Lord or Khorne used his command ability on them and they didn't even have to take a battleshock test. I think I lost 5 models and wiped out a 20 man unit of Gors in return.

 Kriswall wrote:

Aeonotakist wrote:
Generally we dont allow ability with same name to stack. Like someone can get +1 save from terrain and +1 from MS, but not +3 from 3 MS.

Is this a house rule, or your actual reading of RaW? I'm not asking if it's something you think SHOULD happen. I'm asking if you think the rules allow it. If you don't think the rules allow it, I'm asking for your reasons by way of rules citations.

I don't think it's written on the rule. Also I didn't know why we go with that in the beginning.

BTW, how do you treat stack save to 1+? Like 4+ with 2 MS and terrain on it. Is that allowed in the game?

The rules appear to allow 1+ saving throws that will effectively always be successful. The counter to this is to attempt unbinding, kill the Wizards doing the buffing or go for mortal wounds. A 1+ saving throw is nasty, but pretty easily disabled for subsequent turns.

A good (reversed) example of a non-stacker is Skellies - they get +1 to hit if A hero is within range, not for 'each' hero in range.

We play that unless there's an additional caveat, effects stack.

RoperPG wrote:
A good (reversed) example of a non-stacker is Skellies - they get +1 to hit if A hero is within range, not for 'each' hero in range.

We play that unless there's an additional caveat, effects stack.

Agreed. Rage of Khorne has no such caveat, so it should stack just fine.

I'd just say to be consistent.

-If playing with no house rules, then mystic shield, the bloodsecrator ability, and similar buffs all stack. It doesn't say anything to contradict it.

-My group has a house rule about mystic shield and buffs, so we'd say no stacking.


RAW it's phrased so that stacking works fine.

 Kriswall wrote:

Aeonotakist wrote:
Generally we dont allow ability with same name to stack. Like someone can get +1 save from terrain and +1 from MS, but not +3 from 3 MS.

Is this a house rule, or your actual reading of RaW? I'm not asking if it's something you think SHOULD happen. I'm asking if you think the rules allow it. If you don't think the rules allow it, I'm asking for your reasons by way of rules citations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Nothing stopping you from using multiple instance of buffs.
Bloodreavers have an especially nice synergy with a Bloodsecrator.

It was Bloodreavers that we were looking at. I kept a unit of 20 Bloodreavers back with 2 Bloodsecrators right behind them and let the opponent come to me. When they hit the Bloodreavers, my guys had 4 attacks each (5 for the Sarge). 1 base +1 for within 12" a Khorne Totem model +1 for being within 18" of Bloodsecrator #1 +1 for being within 18" of Bloodsecrator #2. It was brutal. My Mighty Lord or Khorne used his command ability on them and they didn't even have to take a battleshock test. I think I lost 5 models and wiped out a 20 man unit of Gors in return.

I think it's fairly straight forward based on your opinion in 'Necrophinx is broken' thread. You can point the rule of your army and just let your opponents to counter them.

If you don't allow stack, I will put 20 executioner to counter 20 bloodreavers plus 2 bloodsecrators. If stack is allowed, I will put maybe 25 or 30.

So I dont see any value to discuss any strategy or rules in AoS if it is a 'balanced by sportmanship' game. You just tell your opponents what your army is like and they judge how to counter in a fair way.
Actually you can even tell your enemy all the blood reaver has rules of deamon prince and your opponents can say each of my executioner represents 5 bolt throwers. As far as the game is interesting by itself.

Aeonotakist wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Aeonotakist wrote:
Generally we dont allow ability with same name to stack. Like someone can get +1 save from terrain and +1 from MS, but not +3 from 3 MS.

Is this a house rule, or your actual reading of RaW? I'm not asking if it's something you think SHOULD happen. I'm asking if you think the rules allow it. If you don't think the rules allow it, I'm asking for your reasons by way of rules citations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Nothing stopping you from using multiple instance of buffs.
Bloodreavers have an especially nice synergy with a Bloodsecrator.

It was Bloodreavers that we were looking at. I kept a unit of 20 Bloodreavers back with 2 Bloodsecrators right behind them and let the opponent come to me. When they hit the Bloodreavers, my guys had 4 attacks each (5 for the Sarge). 1 base +1 for within 12" a Khorne Totem model +1 for being within 18" of Bloodsecrator #1 +1 for being within 18" of Bloodsecrator #2. It was brutal. My Mighty Lord or Khorne used his command ability on them and they didn't even have to take a battleshock test. I think I lost 5 models and wiped out a 20 man unit of Gors in return.

I think it's fairly straight forward based on your opinion in 'Necrophinx is broken' thread. You can point the rule of your army and just let your opponents to counter them.

If you don't allow stack, I will put 20 executioner to counter 20 bloodreavers plus 2 bloodsecrators. If stack is allowed, I will put maybe 25 or 30.

So I dont see any value to discuss any strategy or rules in AoS if it is a 'balanced by sportmanship' game. You just tell your opponents what your army is like and they judge how to counter in a fair way.
Actually you can even tell your enemy all the blood reaver has rules of deamon prince and your opponents can say each of my executioner represents 5 bolt throwers. As far as the game is interesting by itself.

Not useful dude. I'm not trying to make up rules. I'm trying to decide how the core game works.

 Kriswall wrote:

Not useful dude. I'm not trying to make up rules. I'm trying to decide how the core game works.

Well then, it's quite obvious. You just stick to the rules written; since it specifically talks about "this model", that would mean two Bloodsecrators are two distinctive models. So, yes, it would stack.

Which can quickly become monstruous, of course (after all, why stop to only two?).

I'm not seeing the problem here.

The rules allow it. His opponent/group/store/league etc may , or may not, agree and they can talk about it. But RAW it's fine. If the group is playing RAW with no house rules, go for it.

I can see the situation popping up a lot, and not even because someone is trying to stack. Two guys buy starters and swap Sigmar for Khorne, giving them double armies. The khorne player has two bloodsecrators, the Sigmar fellow has two Battlecats. Neither guy is trying to cheese out his armie, it's what you have.

The main problem here is that for many years "You make Da Call" was twisted into "RAW only, stomp your opponents ideas until only one idea remains". This was done to form a consensus for tournaments.

Now we have a more casual game. When someone asks a question in YMDC, a lot of us are taking it literally: We answer how our group is playing it. Many people seem to have a problem with this Hell, even when an OP says he wants to know peoples opinions and not RAW he gets a chunk of RAW tossed his way

-We can play RAW
-We can interpret things in different ways
-We can make house rules.

Another individual or group playing the game differently isn't going to affect us. No one is expecting AOS to turn into a tournament game like 8th edition was.

It's specifically stated in the rules that modifiers stack.

First hardbacked book. Page 235 under modifiers.

"Many warscrolls include modifiers that can affect characteristics. For example, a rule might add 1 to the Move characteristic of a model, or subtract 1 from the result of a role. Modifiers are cumulative"

G

Gharak wrote:
It's specifically stated in the rules that modifiers stack.

First hardbacked book. Page 235 under modifiers.

"Many warscrolls include modifiers that can affect characteristics. For example, a rule might add 1 to the Move characteristic of a model, or subtract 1 from the result of a role. Modifiers are cumulative"

G

You're correct, modifiers do stack. What's not clear is whether spells/abilities stack. Our group says no until we see a FAQ.

Snapshot wrote:

Gharak wrote:
It's specifically stated in the rules that modifiers stack.

First hardbacked book. Page 235 under modifiers.

"Many warscrolls include modifiers that can affect characteristics. For example, a rule might add 1 to the Move characteristic of a model, or subtract 1 from the result of a role. Modifiers are cumulative"

G

You're correct, modifiers do stack. What's not clear is whether spells/abilities stack. Our group says no until we see a FAQ.

In the absence of literally ANYTHING in the rules telling us that spells/abilities DON'T stack, I will assume they do. I'll follow the rules as they are written on the war scrolls. When Bloodsecrator A uses his ability, I'll follow the wording. When Bloodsecrator B uses his ability, I'll follow the wording. This potentially results in a unit being 'buffed' twice by two different abilities with the same name.

Although, if that's your group's house rule... awesome. It's nice that you were able to come to a consensus. I wouldn't expect to see your house rule followed at organized play events or in other groups, though.

The way I read it, spells and abilities don't add a 'state', they just add an effect.

For example, WMH is very specific - for example, a spell can 'blind' a model, and the rules explain what happens to a blinded model. It doesn't matter how many times you 'blind' that model, the gameplay effects are triggered by the state, I.E. once.

AoS simply has trigger conditions (I.e. successful cast, be within x" of y, etc.), duration and modifiers - and the rules state all modifiers are cumulative.
I wish they weren't, as someone who is regularly on the receiving end of multiple +1 to wound grudges...

We house rule that things don't stack - this is exactly because RAW they do, otherwise it wouldn't be a house rule. It looks to me like the Bloodreavers should be getting 4 attacks as you said (and wouldn't even need the Inspiring Presence to ignore battleshock since they have the Khorne keyword). So count me in the crowd that says you have it right.

I think it only makes sense for house ruling that the same spell/effect can't stack multiple times. It gets too gamey, like measuring from the model. There was a ridiculous moment in a miniwargaming battle report where a bloodthirster could only be attacked by one dwarf with a standard bearer because his wing was only within half an inch of that lone dwarf, not the rest of the unit. Silly and though it's written like that I don't think it should be played like that.

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
I think it only makes sense for house ruling that the same spell/effect can't stack multiple times. It gets too gamey, like measuring from the model. There was a ridiculous moment in a miniwargaming battle report where a bloodthirster could only be attacked by one dwarf with a standard bearer because his wing was only within half an inch of that lone dwarf, not the rest of the unit. Silly and though it's written like that I don't think it should be played like that.

Why is following the rules "silly"? If you play against someone for the first time and tell them "it's silly that my dwarfs can't attack, is it ok if I attack with all my guys?" the most likely outcome is that they'll look at you strangely and say "uh, no?"

 Mymearan wrote:

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
I think it only makes sense for house ruling that the same spell/effect can't stack multiple times. It gets too gamey, like measuring from the model. There was a ridiculous moment in a miniwargaming battle report where a bloodthirster could only be attacked by one dwarf with a standard bearer because his wing was only within half an inch of that lone dwarf, not the rest of the unit. Silly and though it's written like that I don't think it should be played like that.

Why is following the rules "silly"? If you play against someone for the first time and tell them "it's silly that my dwarfs can't attack, is it ok if I attack with all my guys?" the most likely outcome is that they'll look at you strangely and say "uh, no?"

It actually seems very reasonable that a bunch of very short Dwarves can't physically reach this giant Daemon who is flying overhead. Realistically, you'd be able to run across his base (remember that bases effectively are ignored) and get maybe 5-6 Dwarves clustered around where the Daemon model meets the base. Every model touches the "ground". Some models have a bigger "footprint" than others. The Bloodthirster has a VERY small "ground footprint" compared to its size. It might be the smallest ground footprint to model size ratio in the game.

Interesting find. Many units like the Bloodsecrator were battle standard bearers in their past lives and have the totem keyword. Generally they provide some kind of "aura" - often with longer range if the model chooses not to move in its movement phase.

Sadly, if not predictably, each "totem" warscroll uses slightly different wording. So there is no consistent framework for determining if stacking was or was not intended to be possible, or even if it was intended to be possible on a case by case basis.

The RAW is messy enough that I think I would play all totem abilities as non-stacking, but I admit that would be a house rule. I feel this is a very different scenario than mystic shield, where multiple wizards using that spell present interesting (but not unbeatable) tactical challenges, and having more than one wizard seems more predictable than loading up on multiple of the same totem model.

Arguably stacking under RAW:

Beastmen: "If he does so, you may not move the Wargor until your next hero phase, but you can add 1 to any wound rolls made in the combat phase for all Brayherd models from your army whilst their unit is within 16" of the Beast Standard."

Dwarfs: "Subtract 2 from any casting roll for a Wizard from your army within 16" of the Ancestral Rune Standard."

Lizardmen: "Until your next hero phase, you may not move this model, but you may add 1 to the result of the casting roll when a Seraphon Wizard in your army attempts to cast any spells."

Ogre kingdoms: "If he does so, he may not move until your next hero phase, but until then all Ogor units from your army within 18" of him are imbued with the hunger of the Great Maw. In the combat phase, wound rolls of 6 or more for these units inflict a mortal wound in addition to any other damage, as your warriors bite big chunks out of the foe."

Tomb Kings: "In your hero phase, a Tomb Herald can plant his standard and cause fallen warriors to return to the fight once more. If he does so, you may not move the Tomb Herald until your next hero phase, but you can immediately return 1 slain model to each Deathrattle unit from your army within 24"

Warriors of Chaos: "Add 2 to the Bravery of all models in any Slave to Darkness units from your army within 20" of this model."

Non-stacking:

(NB that anything providing a re-roll couldn't stack no matter what per the 4-page main rules)

Brettonia: "Add 1 to the Bravery of all Peasantry and Nobility units from your army within 15" of any Grail Banners."

Dark elf: "You can re-roll wound rolls of 1 for any Exiles unit from your army that is within 8" of a Banner of Murder when they attack in the combat phase."

Empire: "You may roll two dice and choose the lowest when taking battleshock tests for State Regiment units from your army within 24" of a Stately War Banner."

High elves: "You may re-roll battleshock tests for Highborn units from your army within 20" of a Phoenix Banner in the battleshock phase."

Orcs: "You can re-roll all wound rolls of 1 for Orruk units from your army that are within 16" of a Great Waaagh! Banner when they attack in the combat phase."

Skaven: "In addition, you can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for all Skaven units in your army that are within 13" of a planted Banner of the Horned Rat."

Vampire Counts: "Roll a dice each time a Death model from your army is slain within 9" of an Infernal Standard"

Wood Elves: "Roll a dice each time a Wanderer unit from your army that is within 8" of a Banner of Athel Loren suffers a wound or mortal wound from a spell"

(Daemons don't have any totem units, for some reason.)

coelomate wrote:

Spoiler:

Interesting find. Many units like the Bloodsecrator were battle standard bearers in their past lives and have the totem keyword. Generally they provide some kind of "aura" - often with longer range if the model chooses not to move in its movement phase.

Sadly, if not predictably, each "totem" warscrolls uses slightly different wording. So there is no consistent framework for determining if stacking was or was not intended to be possible, or even if it was intended to be possible on a case by case basis.

The RAW is messy enough that I think I would play all totem abilities as non-stacking, but I admit that would be a house rule. I feel this is a very different scenario than mystic shield, where multiple wizards using that spell present interesting (but not unbeatable) tactical challenges, and having more than one wizard seems more predictable than loading up on multiple of the same totem model.

Arguably stacking under RAW:

Beastmen: "If he does so, you may not move the Wargor until your next hero phase, but you can add 1 to any wound rolls made in the combat phase for all Brayherd models
from your army whilst their unit is within 16" of the Beast Standard."

Dwarfs: "Subtract 2 from any casting roll for a Wizard from your army within 16" of the Ancestral Rune Standard."

Lizardmen: "Until your next hero phase, you may not move this model, but you may add 1 to the result of the casting roll when a Seraphon Wizard in your army attempts to cast any spells."

Ogre kingdoms: "If he does so, he may not move until your next hero phase, but until then all Ogor units from your army within 18" of him are imbued with the hunger of the Great Maw. In the combat phase, wound rolls of 6 or more for these units inflict a mortal wound in addition to any other damage, as your warriors bite big chunks out of the foe."

Tomb Kings: "In your hero phase, a Tomb Herald can plant his standard and cause fallen warriors to return to the fight once more. If he does so, you may not move the Tomb Herald until your next hero phase, but you can immediately return 1 slain model to each Deathrattle unit from your army within 24"

Warriors of Chaos: "Add 2 to the Bravery of all models in any Slave to Darkness units from your army within 20" of this model."

Non-stacking:

(NB that anything providing a re-roll couldn't stack no matter what per the 4-page main rules)

Brettonia: "Add 1 to the Bravery of all Peasantry and Nobility units from your army within 15" of any Grail Banners."

Dark elf: "You can re-roll wound rolls of 1 for any Exiles unit from your army that is within 8" of a Banner of Murder when they attack in the combat phase."

Empire: "You may roll two dice and choose the lowest when taking battleshock tests for State Regiment units from your army within 24" of a Stately War Banner."

High elves: "You may re-roll battleshock tests for Highborn units from your army within 20" of a Phoenix Banner in the battleshock phase."

Orcs: "You can re-roll all wound rolls of 1 for Orruk units from your army that are within 16" of a Great Waaagh! Banner when they attack in the combat phase."

Skaven: "In addition, you can re-roll hit rolls of 1 for all Skaven units in your army that are within 13" of a planted Banner of the Horned Rat."

Vampire Counts: "Roll a dice each time a Death model from your army is slain within 9" of an Infernal Standard"

Wood Elves: "Roll a dice each time a Wanderer unit from your army that is within 8" of a Banner of Athel Loren suffers a wound or mortal wound from a spell"

(Daemons don't have any totem units, for some reason.)

The thing is, I think all of this is evidence that stacking is intentional.
Broadly, these effects RAW fall into two camps;
"For Each Condition X, apply Effect Y" and "If condition X is met, apply Effect Y".
The wordings are very different - too different for me to believe it's miswording or whatever.
The only comment in the rules is that all modifiers are cumulative.

Well if this is the case if you have multiple Wrathmonger models around you can you stack Crimson Haze? This would allow you some insane damage. Common sense just like stacking totems seems it is not intended to be stacked.

broxus wrote:
Well if this is the case if you have multiple Wrathmonger models around you can you stack Crimson Haze? This would allow you some insane damage. Common sense just like stacking totems seems it is not intended to be stacked.

No, because you only get the additional attack if you are within 3" of *A* wrathmonger, not *each* wrathmonger. You can have a guy with 5 wrathmongers within 3", he still only gets +1A total.
The bloodsecrator's ability is triggered by being within 18" of *this* model.
RAW, a single model can trigger this effect multiple times for each Bloodsecrator within 18".

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
I think it only makes sense for house ruling that the same spell/effect can't stack multiple times. It gets too gamey, like measuring from the model. There was a ridiculous moment in a miniwargaming battle report where a bloodthirster could only be attacked by one dwarf with a standard bearer because his wing was only within half an inch of that lone dwarf, not the rest of the unit. Silly and though it's written like that I don't think it should be played like that.

Doesnt that work the other way aswell. Meaning unless they are within range of The blood thrister and his little nob base it is not in range. He cant reach the dwarfs.

So dwarfs cant hit him, he cant hit the dwarfs.

Technically true. Also, ridiculous.

Generally large monsters like that have a 2" or even 3" reach on their attacks. Also, if it can hit the one dwarf with the standard it can hit the unit.

Gharak wrote:
It's specifically stated in the rules that modifiers stack.

First hardbacked book. Page 235 under modifiers.

"Many warscrolls include modifiers that can affect characteristics. For example, a rule might add 1 to the Move characteristic of a model, or subtract 1 from the result of a role. Modifiers are cumulative"

G

I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation.

Scenario #1: Unit is in cover (+1 to save) and has Mystic shield cast on it (+1 to save). That's an example where I think everyone would agree that the modifiers should be cumulative. The unit should get +2 to its saving throw.

Scenario #2: Two wizards cast Mystic Shield on a unit. Does the unit get +2 to its saves? I don't think that the above quote necessarily answers this scenario. The above quote could have been talking about scenario #1.

I'd leave Scenario #2 or the 2 bloodsecrator scenario as something covered by "The Most Important Rule."