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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Again really guys?

Do powers stack? Well the "different powers do stack" statement is clearly irrelevant from a RAW perspective (though not from an RAI perspective), no matter how much Sirlynch wants it to matter.

However if "Enfeeble" is the example (and I believe all new powers that work this way have the same wording), it has the wording "whilst this power is in effect" therefore no matter how many times you cast the power it is in effect and therefore you are at -1 toughness.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Try reading. He did not quite a rule.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Try reading. He did not quite a rule.

Try reading. He referenced multiple modifiers.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And you, sir, yet again fail to back up your statement with evidence.

By quoting a rule that actually backs it up?
Yeah, shame on him...

Try reading. He did not quite a rule.

SJ

I provided evidence, by citing the multiple modifiers rule. Said rule states the multiple modifiers are cumulative according to the normal rules of mathematics, and place no limit on source of the modifiers.

So yes, I provided evidence. I have p[rovided the evidence that the actual rules do not require the source of the modifier to be different, blue or made of cheese, just that they are a) multiple and b) are modifiers.

WHen you can cite an actual rule requiring that multiple modifiers must be from different sources, please respond.

The issue is not if multiple modifiers are cumulative. It is if we have multiple modifiers.

How ever many times Enfeeble is cast it is in effect thus one modifier of -1.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is not if multiple modifiers are cumulative. It is if we have multiple modifiers.

How ever many times Enfeeble is cast it is in effect thus one modifier of -1.

Bear in mind that the original question wasn't about Enfeeble.
Not all blessings/maledictions have the "while in effect" wording.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
The issue is not if multiple modifiers are cumulative. It is if we have multiple modifiers.

How ever many times Enfeeble is cast it is in effect thus one modifier of -1.

Bear in mind that the original question wasn't about Enfeeble.
Not all blessings/maledictions have the "while in effect" wording.

I fairly certain all the powers that apply modifiers to stats are worded that way (please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think there's any coherent RAW argument against powers without that wording stacking. However as I say I believe all the relevant powers contain that wording.

Hammerhand, Might of Titan, any of the Eldar Runes of Battle, and possibly a few others. I only looked into those two and they both do not contain the "Whilst" wording.

Runes of battle do indeed have the "whilst this power is in effect" language. I believe all 6th ed powers have the wording sorry I should have been more clear. I'd certainly assume Hammerhand stacks with itself ditto for might.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Runes of battle do indeed have the "whilst this power is in effect" language. I believe all 6th ed powers have the wording sorry I should have been more clear. I'd certainly assume Hammerhand stacks with itself ditto for might.

6th Edition powers that do not use that verbiage:

Chaos Space Marines: Gift of Contagion (however, it does specify it stacks with itself)
Eldar: Horrify

Gift of contagion doesn't have the verbiage but does stack with itself (coincidence?) I don't have my codex on me but I'm 95% certain horrify does contain that verbiage. If not then it stacks inmy book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry just checked and Gift does have the verbiage. Which makes me more sure on Horrify.

Sorry, you are correct. GoC does have it. That only leaves Horrify in the Eldar codex.

Hysterically Frenzy (Slaanesh power) does use this wording.

Yeah just checked horrify and you're right. Embolden rather bizarrely does contain that verbiage...

I can see no reason that Horrify wouldn't stack with itself RAW. However I'd argue there is a very strong RaI argument that it doesn't. Given that no other 6th Ed powers work that way and that gift needs to specify it does stack with itself. Plus the repeated reminders that different powers do stack is an implication that the same powers shouldn't. For be that is enough evidence that 6th Ed powers that don't specify they stack with themselves don't.

The GK powers were written for a previous edition and seem to stack with themselves fine.

Wording of specific powers or whether or not modifiers stack does not really answer the OPs question. Specific powers may follow the general rules or be exceptions and of course modifier stack. The question is the psychic powers generally stack?

We all agree different powers are permitted to stack but I've yet to see anyone show that 'same' powers do so. Please address my last post or we'll have to assume no one has any sound argument to support 'same' powers stacking.

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

And permission to apply additional modifiers from a second source that is not permitted to act cumulatively with the first? Page 2 only comes into play if any additional modifiers are applied. Applying additional modifiers requires the powers to be cumulative and such permission is not granted.

But permission is granted, I will explain, no that will take too long, I will sum up:

Page 2 specifies that you use normal math, therefore 4+1 (For hammerhand) and _1 (From an IC that casts hammerhand) stacks because of multiple modifiers and the fact that there is an allowance to cast both of those psychic powers.

Now find something that says they do not stack.

If the BRB said nothing about any power being cumulative I'd agree.
The default way of thinking about things is cumulatively because that is the way most things work and in most cases can be assumed. 1 + 1 = 2, four apples minus three apples equals one apple, etc. Not everything works like that though

But page 2 specifies that this is the way it works, for everything in 40K, unless there is a specific restriction. For Hammerhand there is not a specific restriction.

and if GW is going to specify that some things do work that way on what basis do we declare all of it works that way unless otherwise stated?

When we look at, and understand, what Page 2 says. Then we realize that something saying it stacks is just a reminder.

In essence, we cannot reasonably assume 'stacking' because they actually tells us what stacks(modifiers, different psychic powers, wounds, etc).

Yes, modifiers stack but if the effect that causes those modifiers does not then additional application of that effect creates no new modifiers to stack. Adding anything in addition to the first application of the power requires permission that is not granted in the case of 'same' psychic powers. Essentially, if modifiers were applied they would stack per page 2 but why are you applying more modifiers from powers are not permitted stack?

Except that all things stack, as per page 2, unless there is a specific restriction on it stacking.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again really guys?

Do powers stack? Well the "different powers do stack" statement is clearly irrelevant from a RAW perspective (though not from an RAI perspective), no matter how much Sirlynch wants it to matter.

However if "Enfeeble" is the example (and I believe all new powers that work this way have the same wording), it has the wording "whilst this power is in effect" therefore no matter how many times you cast the power it is in effect and therefore you are at -1 toughness.

So you disagree with my method of arriving at the conclusion. Yet agree with my conclusion. Interesting.

They are relevant in that if all powers stacked, they wouldn't need to be stated at all. Nor restated 2 more times. They help set the dichotomy that you have "same" powers and "different" powers, only one of which is stated to have permission to be cumulative.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Permission is only given for modifiers from different Blessings and Malediction to be cumulative, unless otherwise noted within a specific psychic power's rules.

Page 2 grants permission for all modifiers from all sources to be cumulative.

And permission to apply additional modifiers from a second source that is not permitted to act cumulatively with the first? Page 2 only comes into play if any additional modifiers are applied. Applying additional modifiers requires the powers to be cumulative and such permission is not granted.

But permission is granted, I will explain, no that will take too long, I will sum up:

Page 2 specifies that you use normal math, therefore 4+1 (For hammerhand) and _1 (From an IC that casts hammerhand) stacks because of multiple modifiers and the fact that there is an allowance to cast both of those psychic powers.

Now find something that says they do not stack.

If the BRB said nothing about any power being cumulative I'd agree.
The default way of thinking about things is cumulatively because that is the way most things work and in most cases can be assumed. 1 + 1 = 2, four apples minus three apples equals one apple, etc. Not everything works like that though

But page 2 specifies that this is the way it works, for everything in 40K, unless there is a specific restriction. For Hammerhand there is not a specific restriction.

and if GW is going to specify that some things do work that way on what basis do we declare all of it works that way unless otherwise stated?

When we look at, and understand, what Page 2 says. Then we realize that something saying it stacks is just a reminder.

In essence, we cannot reasonably assume 'stacking' because they actually tells us what stacks(modifiers, different psychic powers, wounds, etc).

Yes, modifiers stack but if the effect that causes those modifiers does not then additional application of that effect creates no new modifiers to stack. Adding anything in addition to the first application of the power requires permission that is not granted in the case of 'same' psychic powers. Essentially, if modifiers were applied they would stack per page 2 but why are you applying more modifiers from powers are not permitted stack?

Except that all things stack, as per page 2, unless there is a specific restriction on it stacking.

Page 2 says modifiers stack, not psychic powers.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic..." page 2 BRB
First prove that 'same' psychic powers work in combination(AKA they stack) then we cam let page 2 take it from there.

Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

While all three points are true, you are mistaken that resolution equals cumulative. Its perfectly legal for a resolved ability to have no effect on a target, example: Enfeeble on a Chimera. Pg. 2 only tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers; nowhere on pg. 2 is permission granted for any abilities to stack. Pg. 32 is the very first mention of multiple uses of same ability, which is specifically denied permission to stack. Pg. 68 gives specific permission for morifiers from multiple different sources to stack. Not multiples uses of the same ability, but multiple uses of different abilities.

Where is permission to stack given? In the last FAQ published for 5th edition, which was superseded by the first 6th edition FAQ, an FAQ that makes absolutely no mention of stacking modifiers.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

Yes.
Yes.
No. Acting non-cumulatively (as it is not permitted to act cumulatively) it has no additional effect beyond the first.

The second does not need to apply a modifier for the power to resolve. Case in point you use and resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle but it does not get -1T... You don't need to apply the modifier for the power to resolve.

Assuming the second use of the power in any way adds to the first is by definition assuming they are cumulative. Letting go of that assumption means the second use of the power will have no additional modifier to add.

You use Enfeeble on unit X 3 times
1. Non-Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of Enfeeble.
2. Cumulatively: Unit X is under the effects of 3 Enfeebles.

Double post

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

While all three points are true, you are mistaken that resolution equals cumulative. Its perfectly legal for a resolved ability to have no effect on a target, example: Enfeeble on a Chimera. Pg. 2 only tells us the order of operations for applying modifiers; nowhere on pg. 2 is permission granted for any abilities to stack. Pg. 32 is the very first mention of multiple uses of same ability, which is specifically denied permission to stack. Pg. 68 gives specific permission for morifiers from multiple different sources to stack. Not multiples uses of the same ability, but multiple uses of different abilities.

Why do you assert that Enfeeble has no effect on a Chimera?
Please stop bringing up page 32 - you've never shown its relevance an continue to fail to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Case in point you use and resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle but it does not get -1T... You don't need to apply the modifier for the power to resolve.

The vehicle comparison still isn't relevant no matter how many times it's brought up.

Assuming the second use of the power in any way adds to the first is by definition assuming they are cumulative. Letting go of that assumption means the second use of the power will have no additional modifier to add.

Thanks for explaining the equivalent of 1+1.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

Yes.
Yes.
No. Acting non-cumulatively (as it is not permitted to act cumulatively) it has no additional effect beyond the first.

Point 3 in Incorrect. Page 2 gives us permission for modifiers to be cumulative due to Maths.

Please quote the passage on pg. 2 that tells us modifiers are cumulative due to maths. I'm not seeing it, but you seem so sure its there.

SJ

rigeld2 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Case in point you use and resolve Enfeeble on a vehicle but it does not get -1T... You don't need to apply the modifier for the power to resolve.

The vehicle comparison still isn't relevant no matter how many times it's brought up.

Assuming the second use of the power in any way adds to the first is by definition assuming they are cumulative. Letting go of that assumption means the second use of the power will have no additional modifier to add.

Thanks for explaining the equivalent of 1+1.

If your going to assert that its modifiers need to be applied for a power to resolve it's absolutely relevant.

So you admit your just assuming they stack without basis by not actually addressing the point at all... find permission to apply additional modifiers without the pyschic powers acting cumulatively as your basis. Thus far you have indicated that they are cumulative because they are cumulative. I'm sure you understand the flaw in that line of thinking and why i do not accept it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Second psychic power has permission to be cast. Agreed?
Second psychic power has permission to resolve. Agreed?
Second psychic power now needs to apply a modifier. Find the denial.

Yes.
Yes.
No. Acting non-cumulatively (as it is not permitted to act cumulatively) it has no additional effect beyond the first.

Point 3 in Incorrect. Page 2 gives us permission for modifiers to be cumulative due to Maths.

Did I say modifiers are not cumulative? Did I mention modifiers at all in my post?

Page 2 is irrelevant until you can prove that a second effect comes about from a second use of the same power. To do that you need to show that two of the same psychic powers are cumulative which you have failed to do so far.

While there are some pure RAW arguments, I really don't see any good faith RAI arguments for same powers stacking. Printing three times that different powers stack and specifically printing allowance for few specific powers to stack, is to me a clear enough indication that they didn't intend same powers to normally stack.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Please quote the passage on pg. 2 that tells us modifiers are cumulative due to maths. I'm not seeing it, but you seem so sure its there.

SJ

Right here, Page 2: "If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values" Applying two +1'to a Score of 4 = (Lets do the Maths) 4+1+1=? (Hint not 5).

Hammerhand modifies a characteristic so when one HH is cast you "apply any multipliers" (But there are none currently)," then apply any additions" (Okay, got a +1 here) "and finally apply any set values" (no set values) so the Str is 4+1

When HH is cast again from an IC in the same unit we follow the same process, applying another +1 raising the Str to 6.

 Crimson wrote:
While there are some pure RAW arguments, I really don't see any good faith RAI arguments for same powers stacking. Printing three times that different powers stack and specifically printing allowance for few specific powers to stack, is to me a clear enough indication that they didn't intend same powers to normally stack.

QTF unfortunately most people on this forum don't care about the actual rules and only care about RAW. It is their firm belief that the GW design team did not design the rules.