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.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
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.

it does not need to "stop" anything, its not permission to stack the same power, and thats all thats needed.

you have no permissionto stack the same power, hence you cannot

you have explicit permission to stack different powers, hence you can

you only do what the rules say you can do, you are not allowed to do anything just because the rules do not mention you cannot.

 Crimson wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:


"Different maledictions are cumulative" does not stop same maledictions from being cumulative.

And why you think that sentence is there then?

Why does not matter. That would bring intent into a RAW discussion.

You have permission to use enfeeble with a psyker and resolve it. You have permission to use it with a different psyker and resolve it. That's your permission and nothing restricts it unless you have an actual rules quote to share.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Why does not matter. That would bring intent into a RAW discussion.

You have permission to use enfeeble with a psyker and resolve it. You have permission to use it with a different psyker and resolve it. That's your permission and nothing restricts it unless you have an actual rules quote to share.

So you actually agree that the intent is that the same power does not stack, but you decide to rules-lawyer to gain an advantage anyway? Okay then, as long as that is clear.

No I don't agree. I believe the statement is a reminder. No part of the statement is restrictive or denying permissions to use maledictions.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
No I don't agree. I believe the statement is a reminder.

Reminder of what? Why the hell would there be a reminder in general psychic power rules that specifically different maledictions stack? Being a reminder would require that there was a more general rule mentioned someplace else. There isn't.

Like I said, when you ask why you're getting into intent. These discussions are about RAW.

RAW allows using and resolving multiple maledictions without any restriction. If you want to discuss RAI, per the previous poll 65% of participants agree that they stack.

again permission to cast and resolve is not permission to be cumulative,

very different things.

Stop equating the two incorectly, that is not RAW, RAW is you get to cast, reseolve, and that is it! you can cast and reseolve the same powere on the same unit twice, that does not mean it stacks.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Given that the chances of having multiple entities capable of casting enfeeble is rather remote I don't see why it'd be a very big deal.

Broodlords can get it right?

Anywy, this is not so much about Enfeeble, as it is about maledictions in general. And new Eldar are in theory spamming quite massive amount of maledictions. With the Iyanden supplement they can have twenty psykers in single FOC.

The theoretical most a Tyranid player, the primary biomancy spammers in the game, could have would be 12 (assuming double FOC) from broodlords and tervigons in troops, 18 from Zoanthropes, and four from hive tyrants. So 34.

At most you have about 8+9+9+36 chances to roll so 62, 64 in case one of the Tyrants is a swarmlord.

And even then, you won't be getting enfeeble that much on that many units. Although notably enfeeble makes the normally useless haemorrage terrifying if used in tandem.

But at this "why don't you just play apoc?" level scale, less than a dozen units with enfeeble aren't going to be quite as wow inducing due to the sheer number of units on the table.

 easysauce wrote:
again permission to cast and resolve is not permission to be cumulative,

very different things.

Stop equating the two incorectly, that is not RAW, RAW is you get to cast, reseolve, and that is it! you can cast and reseolve the same powere on the same unit twice, that does not mean it stacks.

Sure it does. You haven't resolved 2 enfeebles if you haven't stacked them. Do you have any rules to quote stating the resolving and stacking are separate steps with differing restrictions?

well if you are going to continue to equate resolve= stack there is no point in continueing.

plenty of powers are resovled on targets to no(additional) effect.

there is nothing in the rulebook that equates resolving a power to it stacking.

 easysauce wrote:
well if you are going to continue to equate resolve= stack there is no point in continueing.

plenty of powers are resovled on targets to no(additional) effect.

there is nothing in the rulebook that equates resolving a power to it stacking.

The "plenty of powers with no additional effect" are worded in such a way. Just like multiple instances of IWND do not let you roll more dice. Multiple instances of FnP do not improve each other.

Multiple instances of -1T lead to -2T, -3T etc.

 easysauce wrote:
well if you are going to continue to equate resolve= stack there is no point in continueing.

plenty of powers are resovled on targets to no(additional) effect.

there is nothing in the rulebook that equates resolving a power to it stacking.

So what is 4-1-1? If you think it is 2 then we're on the same page. At the moment your argument seems to hinge on this not being the case.

If you're T4 and I cast enfeeble on you are you now T3?

If you are T3 and I cast enfeeble on you what toughness are you?

How do you resolve enfeeble on a model WITHOUT reducing its toughness?

sirlynchmob wrote:
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.

If you have 2 instances of stealth, then you have Stealth X2.

Stealth says "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being I point better than normal."

so if you have stealth on two, or 5 or 30 guys in the unit, you have " at least one model with this special rule" and you improve the cover by 1.

Enfeeble, however, is worded very differently so your example has nothing to do with the discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
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.

If you have 2 instances of stealth, then you have Stealth X2.

Stealth says "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule counts its cover saves as being I point better than normal."

so if you have stealth on two, or 5 or 30 guys in the unit, you have " at least one model with this special rule" and you improve the cover by 1.

Enfeeble, however, is worded very differently so your example has nothing to do with the discussion.

Sure it does, it helps highlight when GW says different abilities stack, they are talking about the actual different named abilities. Two enfeebles are not cumulative.

Hey, but since it treats open terrain as difficult terrain, if you're enfeebled you should be able to WMS upwards when you move right? then run up again and possible levitate 1' over the table. Then you'd never be able to assault the unit unless you were enfeebled as well

They do not stack (really, it should be "They are not cumulative" The argument is not stack/doesn't stack. It's cumulative/concurrent).

There are two interpretations available here. The first is that so long as the target is at -1 S/T, the conditions of Enfeeble are satisfied, no matter how many times it has been cast (concurrent). The second is that each instance of Enfeeble first checks what the current condition of the model is, and then applies its effects (cumulative). The second one makes the statement that "multiple different maledictions are always cumulative" meaningless, and thus should be avoided if possible.

How this works is that while the power is in effect, the model is at -1 S/T. If the model was originally S5/T5, and is now S4/T4, each instance of Enfeeble will be satisfied. The first one will check and say, "Yep, it's -1 S/T." Then the second one checks and says "Yep, it's -1 S/T." This is why it is necessary to state that different powers do are cumulative, or two different powers, such as Iron Arm and Might of Titan, wouldn't be cumulative, because as long as the target was +1 S from Iron Arm, Might of Titan would be satisfied. The power does not say that when it is cast, the target's S/T are reduced by one. That wording would be implicitly cumulative.

To provide an example, imagine I ask you 7 times in a row if you have five dollars in your pocket. If you show me the same five dollar bill seven times, you have satisfied the conditions. You do not have to show me thirty-five dollars. Or for an example from a game with significantly better-written rules; if you tap a permanent in MTG 30 times it is still just tapped, and it still only needs one "untap" spell or step to untap it.

So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

rigeld2 wrote:
So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

Stop throwing poor straw men in there.

There is one question and one only. Does different mean different powers or different castings? That is all and there is nobody that can give a good answer, it is down to how you read it.
Nobody can show it's clearly a reminder nor can anyone show clear RAW that the same power cast twice can stack.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

Stop throwing poor straw men in there.

It's not a poor straw man.
I missed that he addressed that - but now he's saying that Hammerhand breaks 2 rules instead of 1.
I think he's misreading, but that is what he's saying.

I don't agree with that either. I think this is down to reading and needs an FAQ to clear it up or there will be psyker heavy armies out there that will be subject to the whim of a TO's call on this sort of thing.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Sure it does, it helps highlight when GW says different abilities stack, they are talking about the actual different named abilities. Two enfeebles are not cumulative.

Hey, but since it treats open terrain as difficult terrain, if you're enfeebled you should be able to WMS upwards when you move right? then run up again and possible levitate 1' over the table. Then you'd never be able to assault the unit unless you were enfeebled as well

Levitating over the table is not terrain unless you are under a Skyshield landing pad, so that example falls short as well.

The reason the Multiple stealth's has no bearing is because of the way Stealth is worded, which is entirely different from how enfeeble is worded.

Stealth says if one or more models has this rule apply its effect. Enfeeble is not worded like that at all.

It does not help highlight anything as the two abilities are 100% different.

jifel wrote: if I say dogs are good pets, it doesn't make cats bad pets.

Cats are not the exact opposite of dogs unlike different and same.

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.

You are correct, this only effects different psychic powers not 'same' psychic powers. It permits them to accumulate. What permits the same multiple powers to accumulate? Resolution does not, that only allows the power to become an effect, if those effects are not cumulative, their number does not matter.

easysauce wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
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.

it does not need to "stop" anything, its not permission to stack the same power, and thats all thats needed.

you have no permissionto stack the same power, hence you cannot

you have explicit permission to stack different powers, hence you can

you only do what the rules say you can do, you are not allowed to do anything just because the rules do not mention you cannot.

Agreed. They would have to start being cumulative in order to stop. This is a backwards way to look at it. GW has added 'cumulative' status to 'different' powers. This alone creates a distinction between 'same and different powers' and 'non-cumulative and cumulative powers'.

liturgies of blood wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So multiple +1s to STR will work the same way?

Man, Furious Charge will be even more useless.

Stop throwing poor straw men in there.

There is one question and one only. Does different mean different powers or different castings? That is all and there is nobody that can give a good answer, it is down to how you read it.
Nobody can show it's clearly a reminder nor can anyone show clear RAW that the same power cast twice can stack.

While different is not strictly defined its opposite is somewhat when the BRB says "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn". This I believe is generally taken to mean that it cannot use a psychic power of the same name twice, which roughly defines what a 'same psychic power' is unless someone wants to continue arguing that every casting is different so this rule means nothing, in which case I'd wish them luck.

liturgies of blood wrote:I don't agree with that either. I think this is down to reading and needs an FAQ to clear it up or there will be psyker heavy armies out there that will be subject to the whim of a TO's call on this sort of thing.

This also^^^

After rereading enfeeble I think I may have to change my opinion, at least for that particular power. The clause "Whilst the power is in effect..." leads me to believe that multiple instances of that particular power would not be cumulative. First off, congrats GW for fitting "whilst" in there nicely. This condition implies that adding another instance of the same power on the same unit would not mean that a new power is in effect, therefore you'd have the same result. However if that clause was dropped I would have no problem thinking that multiple enfeebles would be cumulative.

I guess it really does come down to whether you think "the power" refers to that particular instance of the power or all instances of it.

Liturgies - it isnt down to reading, at all. The reminder that different powers stack is just that - a reminder. It does not define a new rule, at all.

You reduce T4 to T3
You cast enfgeeble again. Find the restriction that stops that unit becoming T2. Page and graph. Refusal to provide a rule will be treated as concession that there is no rules argument.

 Kain wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Given that the chances of having multiple entities capable of casting enfeeble is rather remote I don't see why it'd be a very big deal.

Broodlords can get it right?

Anywy, this is not so much about Enfeeble, as it is about maledictions in general. And new Eldar are in theory spamming quite massive amount of maledictions. With the Iyanden supplement they can have twenty psykers in single FOC.

The theoretical most a Tyranid player, the primary biomancy spammers in the game, could have would be 12 (assuming double FOC) from broodlords and tervigons in troops, 18 from Zoanthropes, and four from hive tyrants. So 34.

At most you have about 8+9+9+36 chances to roll so 62, 64 in case one of the Tyrants is a swarmlord.

And even then, you won't be getting enfeeble that much on that many units. Although notably enfeeble makes the normally useless haemorrage terrifying if used in tandem.

But at this "why don't you just play apoc?" level scale, less than a dozen units with enfeeble aren't going to be quite as wow inducing due to the sheer number of units on the table.

Actually, Daemons can potentially spam a lot of biomancy even on a single FOC. The reason I asked was I'm thinking of running a psyker heavy flying circus list with daemon princes. 3 Daemon Princes with Lvl 3 psych all rolling on Biomancy has quite a good chance of having more than one enfeeble, and I wanted to know if it would stack. I didn't realise I was getting into such a controversial area; as others have noted whilst it's probably not a common worry with enfeeble (and hence never been FAQ'd) it looks like it's much more of an issue with the new Eldar codex.

Actually, as a comedy list using double FoC, I think you could technically have 16 Heralds of Nurgle, all with level three psych rolling on Biomancy. That's a lot of potential enfeebles

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The reminder that different powers stack is just that - a reminder. It does not define a new rule, at all.

I ask this again, as no one has given satisfactory answer. Why would there be a reminder (three times) that specifically different powers do not stack in the area of rules that discusses powers in general, and in the situation where the general rule you assume to exist is not ever mentioned anywhere?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Liturgies - it isnt down to reading, at all. The reminder that different powers stack is just that - a reminder. It does not define a new rule, at all.

You reduce T4 to T3
You cast enfgeeble again. Find the restriction that stops that unit becoming T2. Page and graph. Refusal to provide a rule will be treated as concession that there is no rules argument.

Sorry Nos there is no permission to have them stack and there is a restriction there that different powers stack, I'm glad that you agree that your inability to provide a rule is a concession.
Different powers stack, that is stated clearly, it doesn't state anywhere that the same power stacks. So I don't need to show that T4 goes to T3 and stops there forever, I am saying that you cannot stack the same power as by my understanding of the word different you haven't got a RAW permission to do so. So unlike Symphony of Pain you cannot use the same power a few times to cripple a unit.

The absence of a rule that ALL powers stack and constant reminders that different powers stack and that certain powers say that they can stack does not support the "Oh it's just a reminder that they all stack" it looks far more like a reminder of Different powers stack and only certain powers can stack with themselves. That being said the question of different is still up in the air but calling it a reminder and sticking to that is avoiding any sort of debate.


On a side note: Why have people started demanding rules to counter arguments on here that have no support in RAW?

Yet there is a general rule? Its called "you have permission to resolve powers" - then each power will determine if it has accumulated effects or not.

Its that straightforward.

Again: how do you decide it isnt a reminder? Why are you making a rule up, out of whole cloth, when no such rule exists?

Liturgies - so you cannot prove your argument? Conceded, thanks for being "gracious" about it.

We have permission to resovle the power. You are trying to stop that power from resolving and the effects being applied, without having a rule to do so. As per the tenets of this forum, please provide an actual rule, page and graph, to back up your claims

Your continued refusal will be noted as your concession you have failed to present any rules to back up your argument, in violation of the tenets of this forum. Or would you like to provide some? BEcause you continued harping on about the rmeinder doesnt actually magically create a rule out of thin air - one you have so far failed to provide, despite claiming it is there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Again: how do you decide it isnt a reminder?

Reminder of what? It absolutely makes sense to have a reminder about specific situation in the text talking about generic situation.

Bikes in 5th edition BRB reminded you they didnt count for Instant Death purposes. That was fairly specific.

It is a reminder that powers can indeed stack. THat is all you need as a reminder. They then chose to be even more redundant by repeating it - but again, redundancy is not proof of necessity.

You have no rules argument so you are now trying to claim that it "makes no sense" to do tyhis? In a GW ruleset, THAT is the strongest arugment you can come up with?

I assume you are now in "HIWPI" territory, as you cannot present an actual rules based argument?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Bikes in 5th edition BRB reminded you they didnt count for Instant Death purposes. That was fairly specific.

It is not an odd reminder because the actually was a rule difference there. The situation here is that in midst of the generic rules of the situation there is this 'reminder' that rules work in certain way for specific subset of powers. It is insane if rules work that way for all powers.