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.

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fling - enough with ignoring the tenets. "THE RULES" are defined in the rulebook. OR is that too literal for you? Taking a heading and believing it?

So what is the right section of forums to discuss rules as they're actually applied while playing the game, instead of intellectual grandstanding?

Odd, I AM applying rules as how they are applied in the games. Also, I assume you are familiar with the tenets, where if you are discussing your own personal houserule you are required to denote that? Otherwise people will assume you are making an argument that can actually be argued against,

Crimson wrote:

Crimson - again with apples and oranges comparisons. FC is written such that one or more provides +1S. Enfeeble isnt. Which we've pointed out....

Why? "Model with this special rule..." vs. "Whilst this power is in effect..." Seems pretty similar to me.

Context is fun though, isnt it. The rules are actually very different.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Odd, I AM applying rules as how they are applied in the games. Also, I assume you are familiar with the tenets, where if you are discussing your own personal houserule you are required to denote that? Otherwise people will assume you are making an argument that can actually be argued against,

Ok. I hope your Wraithguard are not shooting then. But I'm not arguing my personal houserules, merely what the sentence "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." means in the context.

Context is fun though, isnt it. The rules are actually very different.

Oh, now you care about context!

And no, I do not agree that the context makes them different.

 Crimson wrote:
Ok. I hope your Wraithguard are not shooting then. But I'm not arguing my personal houserules, merely what the sentence "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." means in the context.

Mine fire. And my Wraithblades will assault. But that is because the people I play with have a house rule that allows it.

hyv3mynd wrote:"Different maledictions are cumulative" is logically different than "Same maledictions are not cumulative". Law of inverse, converse, or contrapositive, I don't remember it's been 15 years since that class.

"Different maledictions are cumulative" is not a restrictive statement or rule as there is no restriction, only positive reinforcement. Thus it is a reminder. If you want it to be a restriction, it needs to read "ONLY different maledictions are cumulative", which it does not. Making it a restrictive statement requires intent, which is subjective and not RAW.

Here's a comparable statement:

"If you eat two different fruit, you will enjoy them." In the same fashion, this statement does not mean, nor does it imply "if you eat two of the same fruit, you will not enjoy them".

RAW, a psyker can spend a warp charge, take the ld test and resolve a power. The restrictions are in targeting legal units and not using the same power twice. A unit with enfeeble cast and resolved is -1str and -1t. There is no RAW restriction at that point that makes targeting and resolving enfeeble with a second psyker on the same unit. Resolving -1str and -1t is inherently permitted.

If you are claiming you can't resolve -1t twice, please quote an actual rule that says this, as the psychic process allows both powers to be cast and resolved following the correct process. If you haven't subtracted 2t, you haven't resolved enfeeble twice and broken a rule.

You are correct that the positive does not mean the negative but this is a permissive rule set so until you are permitted to enjoy the fruit you cannot. In the listed scenario you are only permitted to enjoy different fruit.

You cast and resolve a second enfeeble and it becomes an effect on the unit. The effect has not been permitted to accumulate with the other though so even though you have two effects(resolved powers) on the unit that say -1S and -1T the unit only drops from T4 to T3. The same power resolves a second time on the same target for no further effect because the rules do not say it is cumulative.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Cryhavok - so again, you are not resolving the power, as the power tells you to apply -1S and T to the unit. You have failed to do so, breaking an explicit rule.

Cite the rule stating you do not resolve the power, despite explicit permission to do so.

Your continued, repeated failure to actually provide a SINGLE RULE to support your argument is proof positive of the lack of rules basis to your assertion.

Please comply with the tenets of this forum, and desist posting baseless assertions. Thanks.

Oh, and you just made up yet another rule! - cite your proof that you require explicit permission to "stack", despite having permission to resolve? As you have just created this requiremetn from nowhere.

So, any chance of some rules? Maybe? Or will you start another thread up?

The burden of proof is on permission. The BRB tells you what powers are cumulative. Find permission for two of the same power to be cumulative. Power resolution does not help, all powers resolve but added effect from additional powers can only come about in a cumulative fashion. IE -1T plus -1T equals -2T would be a cumulative way of resolving the powers. Permission for this could be assumed were it not for the fact that they explicitly state that some powers are cumulative. Given that, presuming they all are cumulative is akin to saying all units are infantry in addition to their listed type because they don't say they're not.

Your placing a cumulative ability on powers when the book does not state they have it.

hyv3mynd wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

why do you think the rule book needs a rule to diss allow every action it DOESNT have a rule for in it?

answer me that, and stop saying because you get to resolve the power, because you have not proven you are allowed to cumulatively resolve the identical power in the first place, thats why this thread is here. making such declarations might be popular because people like stacking all spells, but its not RAW. the power is resolved, either to no additional effect or cumulatively. cite rules for identical powers being cumulative resolved.

I have permission to cast a power. Agreed?
I have permission (assuming I passed my test and DtW failed) to resolve the power. Agreed?
Resolving the power requires applying -1S and T. Agreed?

Where is the denial?

you can resolve the power, without it being cumulative, and with it being cumulative.

the book only has permission for different powers to be resovled cumulatively at this point, you can argue their intent is that all powers are cumulative, but its not RAW anywhere that they are,

Citation pls?

There is only 1 way to resolve enfeeble, that is -1 str and -1t. If you haven't applied those modifiers despite expending warp charge, passing the psychic test, and DTW, you have broken a rule. Once a unit is enfeebled, it is still a legal target for another enfeeble, and nothing in any rule explicitly says the unit is not subject to a further -1/-1.

"Only different powers..." does not exist in the rulebook.

The difference between two non-cumulative -1S and -1T effects being resolved and two cumulative effects of the same sort should be fairly obvious. As I said, some powers are given permission to stack and some are not and in a permissive rule set denial by omission is 100% effective.

@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Resolution and cumulative effects are one in the same. You cannot resolve enfeeble without subtracting the stats. The rest of your argument fails because as stated on every page of this discussion, you have permission by RAW to use enfeeble from 2 different psykers on the same target. Once permission is granted to use the powers AND resolve them, you would need explicit wording for them NOT to be cumulative.

Yakface said it best:

 yakface wrote:
anytime rules involve numbers and math, there are pre-existing rules for mathematics naturally understood in the world. So if you just tell someone that there is a number and then you add one to that number and then add another 1 to that number, the basics of mathematics dictate that they are cumulative.

So by default, before you even enter the world of a game and permissive rules, people naturally understand numbers added together to be cumulative.

Therefore, even within a set of game rules, by default it is understood by most people that any numbers added or subtracted are going to be cumulative unless specified otherwise. The fact that the rules specify certain situations as being cumulative does not change this basic fact.

So really, the way it works is that with a game, you should always assume that if you have a numerical value and multiple things are added onto that, they would always be cumulative unless specified otherwise.

So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules also have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

There is no need to define Single, or Reduced in the BRB (Because the English Language defines those words), the BRB does not have to say that 4-1-1 =2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this, even in a permissive ruleset this is not needed.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

What else can that sentence mean! Why it is there! If they wanted to say powers stack, they would have said so. They didn't. They said different powers stack.

And they also said that models arriving by Deep Strike via Drop Pod Assault cannot assault. It is a reminder, not a restriction.

 Crimson wrote:

 hyv3mynd wrote:
@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

What else can that sentence mean! Why it is there! If they wanted to say powers stack, they would have said so. They didn't. They said different powers stack.

Well according to dictionary.com, among the definitions of "different" are also:
additional
several
various

Thus by using different definitions of the word "different" in the BRB sentence, you get:

"the effects of additional maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of several maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of various maledictions are cumulative"

Three interpretations of that phrase that support stacking enfeeble. Hence the debate between said phrase being either a restriction or a reminder.

 Happyjew wrote:
And they also said that models arriving by Deep Strike via Drop Pod Assault cannot assault. It is a reminder, not a restriction.

In a rules for drop pods! That is rules for specific vehicle reminding you of general rules. It is absolutely different situation than general (and only) rule for the situation 'reminding' you about a specific situation, while entirely omitting to spell out anywhere the general rule it is supposedly reminding you about. You cannot seriously believe that.

This is like if nowhere in the rules it would say that you cannot normally assault from vehicles, but would say you can assault from open-topped or assault vehicles and then people claim that you could assault from any vehicle because it doesn't say you can't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hyv3mynd wrote:

Well according to dictionary.com, among the definitions of "different" are also:
additional
several
various

Thus by using different definitions of the word "different" in the BRB sentence, you get:

"the effects of additional maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of several maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of various maledictions are cumulative"

Three interpretations of that phrase that support stacking enfeeble. Hence the debate between said phrase being either a restriction or a reminder.

Which is a sensible way to look the situation. Except that means that 'different' would mean different instances of the same power being different, thus not same. While talking about casting several powers, rules use word 'same' to mean power with the same name, and not merely instance. This leads me to believe that the reading you offer is wrong. However, I admit that this relies on GW using words 'same' and 'different' consistently and logically throughout the chapter, which is not necessarily the case.

hyv3mynd wrote:@ Abandon ~ Your first statement is fallacious because the word "only" is not a part of what appears in the book. If the phrase said "only different maledictions are cumulative" I wouldn't be having this discussion.

Resolution and cumulative effects are one in the same. You cannot resolve enfeeble without subtracting the stats. The rest of your argument fails because as stated on every page of this discussion, you have permission by RAW to use enfeeble from 2 different psykers on the same target. Once permission is granted to use the powers AND resolve them, you would need explicit wording for them NOT to be cumulative.

I did not say that permission was expressly denied, only that permission is given to one and not the other.

You can certainly resolve two effects without further effect than one if those effects are not cumulative.

DeathReaper wrote:Yakface said it best:

 yakface wrote:
anytime rules involve numbers and math, there are pre-existing rules for mathematics naturally understood in the world. So if you just tell someone that there is a number and then you add one to that number and then add another 1 to that number, the basics of mathematics dictate that they are cumulative.

So by default, before you even enter the world of a game and permissive rules, people naturally understand numbers added together to be cumulative.

Therefore, even within a set of game rules, by default it is understood by most people that any numbers added or subtracted are going to be cumulative unless specified otherwise. The fact that the rules specify certain situations as being cumulative does not change this basic fact.

So really, the way it works is that with a game, you should always assume that if you have a numerical value and multiple things are added onto that, they would always be cumulative unless specified otherwise.

So long story short, even in a permissive rules set, you don't have to give permission for mathematics in the game to follow the normal rules for mathematics...that is a standard 'default' included in every game the same way that the basic definitions for the words you use when writing the rules also have an impact on the meaning and interpretations of those rules.

There is no need to define Single, or Reduced in the BRB (Because the English Language defines those words), the BRB does not have to say that 4-1-1 =2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this, even in a permissive ruleset this is not needed.

I usually agree with Yakface and would in this case as well except they went ahead and labled some powers as cumulative.

If the rules said nothing about it, I would be on the other side of the fence saying exactly what what you quoted(or to it's general effect). Since they labeled certain combinations as cumulative though and remained silent about the rest that assumption is no longer safe. Permission is now clearly given for some powers to stack. In a permissive rule set if some powers/units/weapons/anythings are given permission to do something and the rest are not, the rest cannot do that thing.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're going with the implicit denial? That'd be an argument of intent.

Intent absolutely needs to be considered. Strict RAW if bloody useless. By RAW Wraithguard can't shoot because they don't have eyes.

You'll come across this attitude on this forum a lot. Many people here don't think the rules are what GW designed and are instead = RaW. They see any attempt to understand any beyond the most literal interpretation as baffling and believe common sense is evil. They defend their god RaW despite how ludicrous it often is to do so.

Wow. You couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't the first time you've been that insulting - welcome to ignore since reporting you does nothing.

 hyv3mynd wrote:


Well according to dictionary.com, among the definitions of "different" are also:
additional
several
various

Thus by using different definitions of the word "different" in the BRB sentence, you get:

"the effects of additional maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of several maledictions are cumulative"

"the effects of various maledictions are cumulative"

Three interpretations of that phrase that support stacking enfeeble. Hence the debate between said phrase being either a restriction or a reminder.

You forgot the first two definitions:
1. not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different.
2. not identical; separate or distinct: three different answers.

enfeeble is the same as enfeeble, hence they are not different, and not cumulative.

Only by those interpretations of "different". As I illustrated, "different" has opposite meanings in our application.

I did not leave out those options, they are he versions championed by the anti-stacking crowd over the past 7 pages and 14ish pages of the thread identical to this one, before it was locked due to the same arguments and evolution into fire fights and sniping.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Only by those interpretations of "different". As I illustrated, "different" has opposite meanings in our application.

I did not leave out those options, they are he versions championed by the anti-stacking crowd over the past 7 pages and 14ish pages of the thread identical to this one, before it was locked due to the same arguments and evolution into fire fights and sniping.

ok then:

Various:
1. of different kinds, as two or more things; differing one from another: Various experiments have not proved his theory.
2. marked by or exhibiting variety or diversity: houses of various designs.

Several:
1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
2. respective; individual: They went their several ways.
3. separate; different: several occasions.

I'm not sure where you found additional, but I didn't see that one on dictionary.com. But from the other definitions you picked, we can see they do mean different, like the first two definitions say.

Right, this is why both sides think they're in the right. There's several definitions of "different". Several can mean different, but doesn't always. Different can mean not identical, but not always.

The thing that separates us is the "pro-stack" side sites a RAW process of using psychic powers, while the "anti-stack" side sites a statement which has no explicit restrictions, and relies on a 50/50 chance of one interpretation of a single word to even support a plea of intent.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Right, this is why both sides think they're in the right. There's several definitions of "different". Several can mean different, but doesn't always. Different can mean not identical, but not always.

The thing that separates us is the "pro-stack" side sites a RAW process of using psychic powers, while the "anti-stack" side sites a statement which has no explicit restrictions, and relies on a 50/50 chance of one interpretation of a single word to even support a plea of intent.

Just because one other power was given permission to stack does not mean that it can be extrapolated to all other powers. Check out this thread and see how many people will claim a faq to one ruling just applies to that one rule that was faq'd:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/526501.page

to quote a mod for the fun of it:

 Mannahnin wrote:


I don't think there's any basis to extrapolate further about other exceptions, given that the main rulebook FAQ is pretty darn comprehensive and explicit.

so the question is: is it universally accepted to extrapolate faq entries from one codex to all codex for almost identical rules?

Ok, here's a simple question.

Say, a hive tyrant casts Objuration Mechanicum on a flyer, which causes it to take a Haywire hit. A tervigon then also casts Objuration Mechanicum on the same flyer. So does the flyer take 2 haywire hits or just 1? Both units are casting the same psychic power, which is a malediction.

I'm gonna say no to enfeeble stacking. Just to be on the side of caution. Different under common terms, English dictionary aside, means what I'll guess the majority knows it to be. Two or more things that are not the same, identical as it were.

Just hold your breath for a FAQ .

I would say enfeeble does stack. As has been pointed out multiple times, you have permission to cast each instance of the power (from different users), and no specific restriction on multiple instances of the same power stacking. There is at best an implied restriction, but it's certainly not spelled out, and GW have had plenty of time to FAQ/errata it if they meant it to mean that ONLY different powers can stack.

Can we agree to stop bringing up the "...different powers are cumulative" bit? This statement only affects different powers. If you think otherwise you won't be passing Logic 101. If you feel it has no purpose otherwise, well sorry you feel that way but there is no rule stating that every sentence has to be relevant.

You have permission to apply modifiers cumulatively on page 2. You would need some sort of rule somewhere saying that applying multiple modifiers in an particular instance does not act in the way it does on page 2. Now if you're still saying you need permission to apply modifiers cumulatively, despite page 2, you'd have to explain why you don't argue that non-psychic power modifiers are inherently concurrent. After all the "different power" clause only applies to psychic powers.

If you really want to argue enfeeble not stacking look at the rules of enfeeble itself. "Whilst the power is in effect...", well golly this seems important. You could argue "the power" only refers to the particular instance of enfeeble. Then I'd argue, in that case, you could never truly cast the same power twice and therefore a single psyker can cast different instances of enfeeble in the same turn. If enfeeble A is not the same as enfeeble B the the same psyker can cast both enfeeble A and B. But if enfeeble A is the same as enfeeble B, then multiple instances would yield the same result.

Of course if enfeeble was worded "The affected unit suffers -1 to S and T", with no additional clauses, it would stack.

jy2 wrote:Ok, here's a simple question.

Say, a hive tyrant casts Objuration Mechanicum on a flyer, which causes it to take a Haywire hit. A tervigon then also casts Objuration Mechanicum on the same flyer. So does the flyer take 2 haywire hits or just 1? Both units are casting the same psychic power, which is a malediction.

A hit is not a sustained effect (though the resulting damage is) so their is no need for it to stack. It gets resolved at the time the power is resolved and has no further effect. Also damage to vehicles is well covered and is permitted to stack.

Tarrasq wrote:Can we agree to stop bringing up the "...different powers are cumulative" bit? This statement only affects different powers. If you think otherwise you won't be passing Logic 101. If you feel it has no purpose otherwise, well sorry you feel that way but there is no rule stating that every sentence has to be relevant.

You have permission to apply modifiers cumulatively on page 2. You would need some sort of rule somewhere saying that applying multiple modifiers in an particular instance does not act in the way it does on page 2. Now if you're still saying you need permission to apply modifiers cumulatively, despite page 2, you'd have to explain why you don't argue that non-psychic power modifiers are inherently concurrent. After all the "different power" clause only applies to psychic powers.

If you really want to argue enfeeble not stacking look at the rules of enfeeble itself. "Whilst the power is in effect...", well golly this seems important. You could argue "the power" only refers to the particular instance of enfeeble. Then I'd argue, in that case, you could never truly cast the same power twice and therefore a single psyker can cast different instances of enfeeble in the same turn. If enfeeble A is not the same as enfeeble B the the same psyker can cast both enfeeble A and B. But if enfeeble A is the same as enfeeble B, then multiple instances would yield the same result.

Of course if enfeeble was worded "The affected unit suffers -1 to S and T", with no additional clauses, it would stack.

CC weapons are used in the assault phase so they are assault weapons. That might be true if some weapons were not labeled assault weapons. Does labeling some weapons 'assault' mean that other weapons are not assault? In a permissive rule set, absolutely. Well the BRB says some power combinations are cumulative. Does it say the others are cumulative? No. Then why would you say they are?

And I also agree on the wording of enfeeble but we seem to be discussing psychic powers in general so I let it go.

 Abandon wrote:
CC weapons are used in the assault phase so they are assault weapons. That might be true if some weapons were not labeled assault weapons. Does labeling some weapons 'assault' mean that other weapons are not assault? In a permissive rule set, absolutely. Well the BRB says some power combinations are cumulative. Does it say the others are cumulative? No. Then why would you say they are?

Except in this case all weapons have been labeled assault. As all powers are allowed to be resolved.
"Stacking" and "Cumulative" as just words. Words people are getting too hooked on. What they actually do is well within the rules.

For example:

4-1-1 = 2
Call that stacking if you really want. Call it maths. Call it whatever.

You're proposing:
4-1-1 = 3

All becasue it doesn't say stacking is allowed. You suggest we forget procedure or basic maths. All because they didn't use a buzz word.

We can resolve the power. It take one away from the value.
We can reolve the power again. Take one away from the value.

Does it say stacking is allowed? No.
Does it need to? No. Simply follow the precedure in the rules. It happens by itself.

Does it say stacking is forbidden? No.
Does it need to? Yes. Permission is granted to resolve a power. Nothing resticts it happening again. This is the very nature of a permissive ruleset.

 grendel083 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
CC weapons are used in the assault phase so they are assault weapons. That might be true if some weapons were not labeled assault weapons. Does labeling some weapons 'assault' mean that other weapons are not assault? In a permissive rule set, absolutely. Well the BRB says some power combinations are cumulative. Does it say the others are cumulative? No. Then why would you say they are?

Except in this case all weapons have been labeled assault. As all powers are allowed to be resolved.
"Stacking" and "Cumulative" as just words. Words people are getting too hooked on. What they actually do is well within the rules.

Incorrect, not all powers are said to be cumulative. Though all powers are said to resolve. Permissive rules - some will resolve cumulatively and some will not.

 grendel083 wrote:

For example:

4-1-1 = 2
Call that stacking if you really want. Call it maths. Call it whatever.

You're proposing:
4-1-1 = 3

All becasue it doesn't say stacking is allowed. You suggest we forget procedure or basic maths. All because they didn't use a buzz word.

We can resolve the power. It take one away from the value.
We can reolve the power again. Take one away from the value.

Does it say stacking is allowed? No.
Does it need to? No. Simply follow the precedure in the rules. It happens by itself.

Does it say stacking is forbidden? No.
Does it need to? Yes. Permission is granted to resolve a power. Nothing resticts it happening again. This is the very nature of a permissive ruleset.

Yes basic addition and subtraction do not work non-cumulatively. Not everything works in that manor though and because they have specified what does it should not be assumed everything does.

That being said this really comes down to the question can powers be resolved non-cumulatively? I think yes, you think no. I'm good leaving it at that and will just join the others waiting for an FAQ and will agree to disagree as all the words being added to this topic lately has not caused it to accumulate new points.

I’ve been following this thread (and the other) for a while now, and have noticed a few glaring holes in the logic chains on both sides. For one, it appears that the entire premise behind the “Stacker” argument is the 5th Ed FAQ that allowed all benefits and penalties to stack regardless of source. Unfortunately, that FAQ was superseded by the very first 6th Ed FAQ, yet permission for all benefits and penalties to stack was not retained in any 6th Ed FAQ. This brings us back to the BRB.

First, let’s start off on page 2, under “Modifiers” and “Multiple Modifiers”:

Certain pieces of wargear and special rules can modify a model’s characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+1, +2, etc.), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc.), or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.) ….

If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, the apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values …

What is interesting about these rules is that only wargear and special rules are mentioned as being able to modify a model’s characteristics. Keep that in mind.

Page 32, Special Rules, under “A Compendium of Special Rules” and “What Special Rules do I Have?”:

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.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a model’s Attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules, or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.

The important parts of these rules is that modifiers to characteristics occur via special rules granted by wargear and psychic powers, and that a model cannot gain the benefit of the same rule more than once yet benefits from multiple different rules are cumulative. The often quoted page 68 continues to reinforce this in the “Blessing” entry and “Malediction” entry. While psychic powers are not in and of themselves special rules, a -1 to Strength and Toughness from Enfeeble is a special rule being applied to a model. Keep that in mind.

Per the chain of logic above, Enfeeble grants a specific modifier to an effected model. That modifier is by definition a special rule, which must follow the limitations applied to it for being a special rule. As such, the benefits (or penalties) granted to a model by multiple uses of the same specific rule do not stack, unless otherwise noted. Enfeeble’s special rules (-1 to Strength and Toughness, treats all terrain as difficult terrain) do not include language noting the ability to stack. As such, multiple uses of Enfeeble will never grant more than a single -1 characteristic modifier to two specific stats, nor cause terrain for that model to count as “double difficult”.

This is the same for the often mentioned Hammerhand psychic power, which also does not include language to allow stacking (yet Might of Titan does include such language, allowing it to stack with Hammerhand).

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I’ve been following this While psychic powers are not in and of themselves special rules, a -1 to Strength and Toughness from Enfeeble is a special rule being applied to a model.

Did I miss where you cited that? I'm sure I did, since you're stating it with such authority and literally your entire argument hinges on it.
Enfeeble does not "make this abundantly clear" therefore you cannot consider the effect to be a special rule.

Okay, while I am of the opinion that they shouldn't stack here is something I was able to find:
The BRB, on page 2, has rules for how modifiers stack.

However:

The BRB does not have, as far as I could tell any rules anywhere for modifiers not stacking.

While I think the intention was for them to not stack, I think GW's high quality editors failed to adequately support that intention in RAW.

As I pointed out, we are only give permission to stack modifiers from different sources, such as the -1 T from Rad Grenades will stack with the -1 T from Enfeeble because each modifier occurs from a different source. This is a good example because GW has pointed out in the GK FAQ that multiple uses of Rad Grenades are not cumulative, while there is still no mention anywhere that the effects of Enfeeble are cumulative.

As to there being no example on pg. 2 of multiple modifiers NOT being applied, there are in fact no examples of multiple additive or subtractive modifiers being applied at all!

This all goes back the how 6th has been written: loosely, requiring the interaction of several individual rules to completely satisfy any one action. GW has literally gone out of their to make each rule fail when considered in a vacuum, forcing veteran players to drop their assumptions to embrace the body of rules as a single tapestry rather than a work of individual threads. Which is to say that GW wrote a set of poorly worded rules that requires us to search for context in other sections.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I’ve been following this While psychic powers are not in and of themselves special rules, a -1 to Strength and Toughness from Enfeeble is a special rule being applied to a model.

Did I miss where you cited that? I'm sure I did, since you're stating it with such authority and literally your entire argument hinges on it.
Enfeeble does not "make this abundantly clear" therefore you cannot consider the effect to be a special rule.

Then it cannot modify characteristics at all. It is certainly not wargear.

So you're refusing to resolve the power again...

Man, could you please cite a rule for once?