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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Funny I quoted my rules saying Dm=c, now where is your rule saying Sm=c? Permission for different to be cumulative, no permission for the same to be cumulative. Hence your projecting your failure at finding rules unto me. as you have no rule to stand on.

Page 68 under resolving powers, and page 419 under the Enfeeble entry in the big BRB (Not sure about a page number for the small one, but it is on the page with the Biomancy Psychic powers).

There is your permission to cast and resolve enfeeble from two different casters. Any restriction on these castings not stacking?

This. I'll break it down for the slow folks today.

Psyker #1 generates warp charge.
Psyker #1 expends warp charge, declares a target for enfeeble, checks range, passes test, avoids DTW
Psyker #1 resolves enfeeble by subtracting -1str/t on target unit, also making open ground count as difficult
Psyker #1 is done

Psyker #2 generates warp charge (simultaneous with #1)
Psyker #2 expends warp charge, declares a target for enfeeble, checks range, passes test, avoids DTW
Psyker #2 resolves enfeeble by subtracting -1str/t on target unit, also making open ground count as difficult
Psyker #2 is done

If both psykers target different units, they have permission to complete the above steps. If both psykers target the same unit, no permissions have changed and there are no additional restrictions upon the already granted permissions. Thus two different instances of enfeeble, both of which have removed -1str/t upon resolution culminating in -2str/-2t due to permissions granted, none restricted, rule of multiple modifiers, and RAW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Funny I quoted my rules saying Dm=c, now where is your rule saying Sm=c? Permission for different to be cumulative, no permission for the same to be cumulative. Hence your projecting your failure at finding rules unto me. as you have no rule to stand on.

Page 68 under resolving powers, and page 419 under the Enfeeble entry in the big BRB (Not sure about a page number for the small one, but it is on the page with the Biomancy Psychic powers).

There is your permission to cast and resolve enfeeble from two different casters. Any restriction on these castings not stacking?

there is no need to define 4-1-1 =2 because the basic rules of math already tell us this. In a permissive ruleset defining 4-1-1 =2 is not needed.

It's amazing how quickly people forget how permissive rule sets work. Where is the permission for enfeeble to stack with enfeeble? You can resolve multiple enfeebles, but only different maledictions are cumulative. different caster, same malediction.

And you are only demonstrating your lack of understanding on permissive ruleset.

You are granted permission to resolve a malediction by expending warp charge, taking the test, and avoiding DTW. Resolving enfeeble makes a unit -1str/-1t and treat open ground as difficult until the beginning of the casting player's next turn.

If you do not resolve the -1 twice for two enfeebles, you have broken the rule granting PERMISSION to resolve maledictions. You do not need another permission for them to be cumulative when you have one that already allows resolution.

Don't we already have 1 thread on this?


Ok, here's a simple question that I ask to the people who say same maledictions don't stack (aren't cumulative):


Say, a hive tyrant casts Objuration Mechanicum on a flyer, which causes it to take a Haywire hit (as well as re-roll 6's). 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.

tgjensen wrote:
Seriously though guys. Wounds aren't cumulative, right? I can't find it anywhere in the rulebook.

So I decided to look into this and I found out a few things. To answer your question though, page 15 of the rulebook has the rules for wounds in the shooting phase. To paraphrase, you allocate and resolve each wound from the wound pool and it's effect is over before you move on to the next one. This is different than something with a fixed duration rather than an instantaneous duration that has a lasting effect.

What I found though, not to derail my own thread or anything, is that during the assault phase, unlike during the shooting phase, allocating wounds does not include reducing the model's wound value by one lol. (it doesn't even say anything like "just like the shooting phase" in it). It is very silly. The only thing thing it tells you to do with assault wounds is to "roll saves (if it has one) and remove casualties (if necessary)". (page 25) You never actually reduce the wounds by one for assault wounds, and therefore nothing actually dies from CC attacks lol. However, you can still win an assault because it counts the number of unsaved wounds inflicted, not the number of unsaved wounds lost lol.

Not that I think anyone does, or should play this way, that would be rather silly. Also if it matters my BRB is the little, fluffless one from the dark vengence pack, I don't know if there is a difference though.

cryhavok wrote:
What I found though, not to derail my own thread or anything, is that during the assault phase, unlike during the shooting phase, allocating wounds does not include reducing the model's wound value by one lol. (it doesn't even say anything like "just like the shooting phase" in it).

(Orange Emphasis mine).

You missed the bolded part on Page 25.

"Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase." p.25

resolving wounds in the shooting phase includes reducing the models wound value by one.

cryhavok wrote:
So I decided to look into this and I found out a few things. To answer your question though, page 15 of the rulebook has the rules for wounds in the shooting phase. To paraphrase, you allocate and resolve each wound from the wound pool and it's effect is over before you move on to the next one. This is different than something with a fixed duration rather than an instantaneous duration that has a lasting effect..

Frankly I don't see how a malediction having a fixed duration has anything to do with how you resolve multiple instances of something. If anything, the fact that the -1 wound modifier from suffering an unsaved wound lasts the rest of the game is an argument for a wounded model being immune from suffering any future wounds. It's just like if Enfeeble lasted the rest of the game!

I suffer a number of unsaved wounds on a unit including my Warboss, and allocate the first wound to him. He suffers a -1 wound modifier. Since he isn't dead, I allocate the next wound to him as well. But as he has already suffered a -1 wound modifier from an unsaved wound, and since the rules don't explicitly permit for this negative modifier to accumulate, he remains at two wounds, can have the rest of the unsaved wounds allocated to him and consequently no other member of the unit is wounded. In fact, the Warboss can never be wounded again, since the negative Wound modifier is permanent and, as far as I can tell, the rules don't even specifically allow for different unsaved wounds to accumulate.

You know, like different psychic powers specifically are permitted to do.

All we are told is that

1) If you are wounded you suffer -1 Wounds
2) If you are reduced to 0 wounds you are removed as a casualty

So, barring any specific permission for unsaved wound modifiers to accumulate, only 1 wound models can be removed as a casualty - Instant Death and similar special circumstances notwithstanding.

 DeathReaper wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
What I found though, not to derail my own thread or anything, is that during the assault phase, unlike during the shooting phase, allocating wounds does not include reducing the model's wound value by one lol. (it doesn't even say anything like "just like the shooting phase" in it).

(Orange Emphasis mine).

You missed the bolded part on Page 25.

"Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closest model, just like in the Shooting phase." p.25

resolving wounds in the shooting phase includes reducing the models wound value by one.

Ah your right I did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tgjensen wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
So I decided to look into this and I found out a few things. To answer your question though, page 15 of the rulebook has the rules for wounds in the shooting phase. To paraphrase, you allocate and resolve each wound from the wound pool and it's effect is over before you move on to the next one. This is different than something with a fixed duration rather than an instantaneous duration that has a lasting effect..

Frankly I don't see how a malediction having a fixed duration has anything to do with how you resolve multiple instances of something. If anything, the fact that the -1 wound modifier from suffering an unsaved wound lasts the rest of the game is an argument for a wounded model being immune from suffering any future wounds. It's just like if Enfeeble lasted the rest of the game!

I suffer a number of unsaved wounds on a unit including my Warboss, and allocate the first wound to him. He suffers a -1 wound modifier. Since he isn't dead, I allocate the next wound to him as well. But as he has already suffered a -1 wound modifier from an unsaved wound, and since the rules don't explicitly permit for this negative modifier to accumulate, he remains at two wounds, can have the rest of the unsaved wounds allocated to him and consequently no other member of the unit is wounded. In fact, the Warboss can never be wounded again, since the negative Wound modifier is permanent and, as far as I can tell, the rules don't even specifically allow for different unsaved wounds to accumulate.

You know, like different psychic powers specifically are permitted to do.

All we are told is that

1) If you are wounded you suffer -1 Wounds
2) If you are reduced to 0 wounds you are removed as a casualty

So, barring any specific permission for unsaved wound modifiers to accumulate, only 1 wound models can be removed as a casualty - Instant Death and similar special circumstances notwithstanding.

I am not even getting in to this. You and I are looking at it with entirely different logic sets. If you want to try to make some other thing that is different into the same as a malediction, don't let me stop you. That doesn't make it a good example though.

cryhavok wrote:
Here is the way I am looking at it: In order for stacking to even be an issue, a metaphysical object needs to be there. In the case of the enfeeble it has a duration, and when another enfeeble is cast on it while it is still there, ther are now two enfeebles. Stacking can now be discussed. In the case of wounds, you take a wound from the wound pool, it eats a wound off your model and expires. It is no longer there. When you go to take the next wound from the wound pool, the previous wound from the pool is not there crowding the space. As nothing is there to stack with, stacking is not discussed.

Beyond this I am not even getting in to this. If you and I are looking at it with entirely different logic sets. They way I look at it fits the way the game works and everyone plays(the wound thing, not the enfeeble thing). If you want to look at it in some other way that makes it not function, don't let me stop you.

Obviously I am applying the same logic that some other posters in this thread to show how absurd the game becomes if you apply a very strict interpretation of the permissive ruleset frame of mind to it.

So with that in mind, I will point out to you that "taking a wound" in game terms means reducing the Wounds characteristic by one. It is literally a permanent stat modifier, unlike Enfeeble which only lasts until the end of the next turn. So the previous wound is very much still there, crowding the space, and we are in fact confronted with the problem of stacking stat modifiers that we apparently have no permission to stack.

tgjensen wrote:

cryhavok wrote:
Here is the way I am looking at it: In order for stacking to even be an issue, a metaphysical object needs to be there. In the case of the enfeeble it has a duration, and when another enfeeble is cast on it while it is still there, ther are now two enfeebles. Stacking can now be discussed. In the case of wounds, you take a wound from the wound pool, it eats a wound off your model and expires. It is no longer there. When you go to take the next wound from the wound pool, the previous wound from the pool is not there crowding the space. As nothing is there to stack with, stacking is not discussed.

Beyond this I am not even getting in to this. If you and I are looking at it with entirely different logic sets. They way I look at it fits the way the game works and everyone plays(the wound thing, not the enfeeble thing). If you want to look at it in some other way that makes it not function, don't let me stop you.

Obviously I am applying the same logic that some other posters in this thread to show how absurd the game becomes if you apply a very strict interpretation of the permissive ruleset frame of mind to it.

So with that in mind, I will point out to you that "taking a wound" in game terms means reducing the Wounds characteristic by one. It is literally a permanent stat modifier, unlike Enfeeble which only lasts until the end of the next turn. So the previous wound is very much still there, crowding the space, and we are in fact confronted with the problem of stacking stat modifiers that we apparently have no permission to stack.

Actually I made a mistake, the wound from the wound pool sticks around, it doesn't disappear like I thought it did, so your right. This of course makes me love GW editors more and more though, as you literally gain a wound in order to lose a wound.

So this does seem to be literally the same argument going on in two threads now, so I'll lock this one.