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.

Because this enfeeble refers to that casting of enfeeble

I understand that in your interpretation this is the case. I just don't understand why. Why does "this power" refer to the specific casting and not just that named power?

sirlynchmob wrote:Only different psychic powers stack, only different maledictions stack,.

Where does it state this? Where is the wording that says that the same maledictions don't stack or that ONLY different maledictions do stack. You've never posted any rules to support this stance. We have permission by page 2 to use maths we have a specific change to this for save throws do we have a specific change for this in the psychic rules. If so tell us where.

I encourage people to vote against the stack.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers. It shows when in question about the math we look at the rules first, not pg 2. As the stacking side brought up pg 2, discussing and showing how it works is on topic as well.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the armour saves topic proves that maths stands unless there is a specific rule that tells you to do something different. Where do the Psychic rules tell you that maths works differently for them or give you something different to do?

Sirlynchmob, please understand what fling is saying.
This is 100% true.

Of course in the case of enfeeble we have permission to cast it twice on the same unit and permission to use normal math to modify the units Toughness stat.

I do understand, we look at the rules to determine what modifiers we have and how to use them.

So lets look at the rules on pg 68 resolving, "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
malediction: "note that the bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative."
We see from 142S, 418B, that different psychers can have the same powers, so we do have 2 different states of powers. Same and different.

We have permission now for different psychic powers to be cumulative. And that changes the math, you can cast it twice, but upon resolving the second one we see it's not cumulative and are still left with a single modifier.

Does enfeeble state if it is cumulative with enfeeble? no.`
But, The Nurgle Chaos Marine power Gift of Contagion is a malediction that DOES have distinct verbiage allowing multiple castings of the same power to stack. because, It was otherwise stated, it can stack.

We have permission now for different psychic powers to be cumulative. And that changes the math, you can cast it twice, but upon resolving the second one we see it's not cumulative and are still left with a single modifier

How does it being cumulative change the maths? Being cumulative is the same as 2+1+1=4 which is the same as maths from pg2. So there is no change there.

Do you not understand that or where you intentionally lying?

 FlingitNow wrote:

We have permission now for different psychic powers to be cumulative. And that changes the math, you can cast it twice, but upon resolving the second one we see it's not cumulative and are still left with a single modifier

How does it being cumulative change the maths? Being cumulative is the same as 2+1+1=4 which is the same as maths from pg2. So there is no change there.

Do you not understand that or where you intentionally lying?

Cumulative
Adjective
Increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions.

so for your example yes different powers are cumulative.

Same is not, unless otherwise noted. Ergo, no success additions, or just 1 modifier, not 2. or just 2+1=3.

Did you read what I wrote? You agree with me, then ask if I'm lying.

Same is not, unless otherwise noted

Citation please

You said that the rules that states different powers are cumulative is changing the maths it is not. It is keeping the maths the same. Hence asking whether that was an intentional lie.

Crimson - i reported you for trolling the thread with an answered question, and given it cannto "stack" in the same way - this is a basic 4-1-1=2 answer, as opposed to taking multiple tests or not. Oh, and your insults. Did you forget those?

"Same is not" doesnt appear in the rules, Sirlynch - any chance of finding that rule, since you dont seem to understand how the rules are constructed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crimson - i reported you for trolling the thread with an answered question, and given it cannto "stack" in the same way - this is a basic 4-1-1=2 answer, as opposed to taking multiple tests or not. Oh, and your insults. Did you forget those

Ah okay, good luck with that, I guess.

So I think we're done here it appears whilst theoretically Maledictions stack with themselves all current Maledictions do not due to the "whilst this power is in effect" wording (and likely all future ones will have this wording too). And no one is yet to argue against this, I think we can close this thread until a differently worded Malediction comes out.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So I think we're done here it appears whilst theoretically Maledictions stack with themselves all current Maledictions do not due to the "whilst this power is in effect" wording (and likely all future ones will have this wording too). And no one is yet to argue against this, I think we can close this thread until a differently worded Malediction comes out.

That is not true, "whilst this power is in effect" could refer to that specific casting of that Malediction, or that particular malediction as a whole. As of right now, no one knows.

I think the only conclusion can be:

RAW: inconclusive.

there's only 1 vote difference as I post this, and out of 219 votes that's impressive.

Til next time, play it as you and your opponent agree.

This isn't ever being answered. Plus, we seem to have an almost even split now. I say we wait till the next FAQs, which hopefully will be in a week or two (GW seems to like the 13th for some reason). Until then, follow the INAT, or follow your local TOs, or follow whoever you want, but I'm checking out of this thread.

And the vote is tied, quick lock the thread

There, *now* it is an even 50/50 split.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So I think we're done here it appears whilst theoretically Maledictions stack with themselves all current Maledictions do not due to the "whilst this power is in effect" wording (and likely all future ones will have this wording too). And no one is yet to argue against this, I think we can close this thread until a differently worded Malediction comes out.

Here is something different but in the same vein of discussion... The CSM Nurgle psychic lore has one spell that has a possible three different effects (roll d3 to determine which malediction is in effect). One of them is -1S and -1T to the enemy unit. I am thinking this would stack with Enfeeble since it is a different psychic power.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So I think we're done here it appears whilst theoretically Maledictions stack with themselves all current Maledictions do not due to the "whilst this power is in effect" wording (and likely all future ones will have this wording too). And no one is yet to argue against this, I think we can close this thread until a differently worded Malediction comes out.

Here is something different but in the same vein of discussion... The CSM Nurgle psychic lore has one spell that has a possible three different effects (roll d3 to determine which malediction is in effect). One of them is -1S and -1T to the enemy unit. I am thinking this would stack with Enfeeble since it is a different psychic power.

That's right, Enfeeble and "Gift of Contagion" would be cumulative. In fact, for bonus points, "Gift of Contagion" is cumulative with itself because it explicitly says so unlike Enfeeble.

Yes, "Gift of Contagion" explicitly says it is cumulative with itself.

Enfeeble, through the permission of the psychic powers rules, and how the game handles math is also cumulative.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
According to the actual rules it does actually.
You're told to resolve the power according to its rules entry.
Find anything in the rules entry that allows you to not apply the modifiers.

Before you bring up vehicles or models with a S/T of 1, remember that there are rules to explicitly handle that.

Cite the rule that explicitly stops the modifiers from being applied.

The section that tells you to resolve the power also specifies which powers are cumulative. If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?
I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?
I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?

Where is the denial of permission?

Assuming you refering to the scenario where you are using enfeeble on a target that already is under the effect of another enfeeble.

"I have permission to cast the power. Agreed?"
Assuming valid target and all that jazz, yes.
"I have permission to resolve the power (assuming DtW failed and my test passed). Agreed?"
Yup.
"I have permission to modify characteristics (based on page 2). Agreed?"
No. The effect of the second enfeeble is not permitted to be cumulative with the first.

So where is the denial rule? You've asserted it exists. Prove it. You'd be the first ever.

You do not need a denial rule where no permission has been given

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If they are not different powers they are not permitted by this section to resolve in a cumulative fashion.

And there is your leap in logic.

"the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does not mean that casting enfeeble twice on a single unit is not cumulative, given that we have permission to cast the power on a single unit twice with different casters.

That is not a leap at all. It does not state that 'same' powers are cumulative. Not stating it is not giving permission which is the equal of not permitted. You leap of logic is that because you have permission to resolve the power it will resolve in a cumulative manor.

FlingitNow wrote:

They weren't illogical, the armor saves topic, proves the point that the rules dictate the modifiers

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you the armour saves topic proves that maths stands unless there is a specific rule that tells you to do something different. Where do the Psychic rules tell you that maths works differently for them or give you something different to do?

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Omission =/= Permission. That is a standard bylaw of a permissive rule set. You must have permission to do something, and omission automatically equates to denial.

Correct. I've never said otherwise.

This is originally determined on page 32

Stop right there - what does a rule in the Special Rules section have to do with Psychic Powers?
You do know that Enfeeble (and other Maledictions) are not special rules, right?

There is at least one power in 6th Ed that does contain such verbiage, reenforcing the intent noted in the BRB.

So you're making an argument of intent? Okay.

As to page 2, it is a fallacy to state that basic math overrides specific rules, since the BRB dictates how math is applied within the rule set. The rules tell us which modifiers are cumulative (different sources) and which are concurrent (same source) in six different passages in the BRB, all of which occur after page 2. To further support this, the authors omitted any example on page 2 of multiple similar modifiers being applied (I challenge you to quote one!).

Except there are literally zero specific rules saying that same maledictions don't stack. There is a rule that implies that - but implication isn't enough. Implication is evidence of intent but has nothing to do with what's actually written.

I challenge you to quote a single rule that denies the permission given by page 2 for modifiers to stack. I don't need a rule that says they do - multiple modifiers makes allowance for a number of modifiers to be applied.

As to your challenge, there doesn't need to be an example of 4+1+1=6 - that's factual. There does need to be examples of how the different modifiers (especially set modifiers) interact.

You do realize the rule on page 2 you often refer to only allows special rules and wargear to modify stats. They are special rules or they don't function... unless you want to claim they are warger...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Crimson - i reported you for trolling the thread with an answered question, and given it cannto "stack" in the same way - this is a basic 4-1-1=2 answer, as opposed to taking multiple tests or not. Oh, and your insults. Did you forget those?

"Same is not" doesnt appear in the rules, Sirlynch - any chance of finding that rule, since you dont seem to understand how the rules are constructed?

DeathReaper wrote:Yes, "Gift of Contagion" explicitly says it is cumulative with itself.

Enfeeble, through the permission of the psychic powers rules, and how the game handles math is also cumulative.

As in how they handle math on page two? We are talking about psychic powers stacking not modifiers.

Noting this is the closest poll I've ever seen on Dakka that wasn't misworded to favor a certain side. I definitely think a FAQ is needed.

 Abandon wrote:
You do not need a denial rule where no permission has been given

Except there is permission to cast enfeeble from two different psykers on a single unit. You realise this right?

 Abandon wrote:
That is not a leap at all. It does not state that 'same' powers are cumulative. Not stating it is not giving permission which is the equal of not permitted. You leap of logic is that because you have permission to resolve the power it will resolve in a cumulative manor.

No leap in logic if you actually follow what the rules say.
It does not state that 'same' powers are cumulative. It does not have to.

They have permission to both be cast and targeted on the same unit. They do not explicitly need to say that they stack, because the basic rules for psychic powers, and math do that for them.

a -1 Toughness is the very definition of a Modifier (Please read P.2 as to why subtracting 1 is a modifier).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
You do not need a denial rule where no permission has been given

Except there is permission to cast enfeeble from two different psykers on a single unit. You realise this right?

 Abandon wrote:
That is not a leap at all. It does not state that 'same' powers are cumulative. Not stating it is not giving permission which is the equal of not permitted. You leap of logic is that because you have permission to resolve the power it will resolve in a cumulative manor.

No leap in logic if you actually follow what the rules say.
It does not state that 'same' powers are cumulative. It does not have to.

They have permission to both be cast and targeted on the same unit. They do not explicitly need to say that they stack, because the basic rules for psychic powers, and math do that for them.

a -1 Toughness is the very definition of a Modifier (Please read P.2 as to why subtracting 1 is a modifier).

Both powers can be used and resolved but that does not mean they are cumulative. Where do you make that connection? It isn't in the BRB that I have, please cite the rule stating it is so.

Twice the cause does not always create twice the effect. Turning off the lights twice does not make the room darker....

So how are you resolving the power per the rules for the power without applying the effect?

I'm sure you can cite a rule allowing that.

 Abandon wrote:
Both powers can be used and resolved but that does not mean they are cumulative. Where do you make that connection? It isn't in the BRB that I have, please cite the rule stating it is so.

I have cited it.

The rules allow Both powers to be used and resolved. The power tells us the unit suffers -1 Toughness.

Following basic math, and the rules on Page 2 that confirms basic math is in effect unless otherwise stated, that means 4-1-1 does in fact = 2

Twice the cause does not always create twice the effect. Turning off the lights twice does not make the room darker....

Not a good analogy at all.

A better one is you have 4 apples. One person takes one apple giving you -1 apples you now have 3 apples. A different person takes one apple giving you -1 apples, you now have 2 apples.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Both powers can be used and resolved but that does not mean they are cumulative. Where do you make that connection? It isn't in the BRB that I have, please cite the rule stating it is so.

I have cited it.

The rules allow Both powers to be used and resolved. The power tells us the unit suffers -1 Toughness.

Following basic math, and the rules on Page 2 that confirms basic math is in effect unless otherwise stated, that means 4-1-1 does in fact = 2

Twice the cause does not always create twice the effect. Turning off the lights twice does not make the room darker....

Not a good analogy at all.

A better one is you have 4 apples. One person takes one apple giving you -1 apples you now have 3 apples. A different person takes one apple giving you -1 apples, you now have 2 apples.

And following your analogy, a person can only take 1 apple. He takes one, he can not take another one. Only a different person can take another apple.
4-1=3.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Both powers can be used and resolved but that does not mean they are cumulative. Where do you make that connection? It isn't in the BRB that I have, please cite the rule stating it is so.

I have cited it.

The rules allow Both powers to be used and resolved. The power tells us the unit suffers -1 Toughness.

Following basic math, and the rules on Page 2 that confirms basic math is in effect unless otherwise stated, that means 4-1-1 does in fact = 2

Twice the cause does not always create twice the effect. Turning off the lights twice does not make the room darker....

Not a good analogy at all.

A better one is you have 4 apples. One person takes one apple giving you -1 apples you now have 3 apples. A different person takes one apple giving you -1 apples, you now have 2 apples.

Your argument is that basic math dictates that they stack per page 2. Those rules only cover stat modifiers applied by special rules and wargear. If you're saying this is a special rule you'd have to apply the rule on page 32
"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."

If you're saying this is a modifier from wargear well then your argument would itself be quite special.

A comparison between those analogies is a good example that cumulative vs. non-cumulative has nothing to do with whether or not an effect resolves.

So let me see if I can sum this thread up.

Some psykers had permission to each take the same amount of apples, then cast them into a math argument; all the while yelling we don't understand the term different.

Or, I need this to work to douche games up cuz my dice fail at rolling.

Well we know that theoretically the same maledictions can stack with themselves due to permission to apply maths to modifiers on page 2 (and then there is no denial of this permission).

However all the maledictions that this applies to contain the language "whilst this power is in effect". This can be taken two ways. Either "this power" means the power it is talking about in general which prevents stacking or it means this instance of the power which allows stacking. Both are valid RaW.

So given we have an inconclusive RaW answer we should look at intent to work out what the rules are. The repeated statements that different powers do stack strongly implies that the intent is for the same ones not to.

SIrlynch - so you resolve the first power. You are now T3. Find permisison to pretend youre still T4.

This should be given as gift with each rulebook. Since GW a company based in the UK fails to define clearly in the English language how a toy soldiers game should work and we need a dictionary in order to clear out the rules then I guess non native speakers have no chance at all.



Thank god they don't make heavy machinery or even better gun! Imagine a manual for a JCB written by GW

I think at this point we#re just going round in circles.

let's hope GW clarify one way or another eventually.