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.

Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?

That is a bizarre interpretation that does not fit into any rule that you can possibly provide.

"Hammerhand" is not on the unit twice, the psyker has cast ahmmerhand, and the effect is on the unit twice.

It has to accumulate, according to page 2

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?

That is a bizarre interpretation that does not fit into any rule that you can possibly provide.

"Hammerhand" is not on the unit twice, the psyker has cast ahmmerhand, and the effect is on the unit twice.

It has to accumulate, according to page 2

Permission to resolve does not automatically provide the effect twice

Read page 2, and note that it does in this case.

Do you have a rules argument, or just an assertion?

I have not made a *blanket* statement on *all* psychic powers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?2

Every time i read this i see a blanket statement

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?2

Every time i read this i see a blanket statement

Shocking that you would remove the context from a sentence, removing the context of "HAMMERHAND", and think such a think

Couldnt possibly be a misleading statement, no....

The ACTUAL statement, with context preserved (those pesky words!) is:

"Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?"

Clearly only talking about Hammerhand. Otherwise I can edit your response to be:

kambien, but taken out of context wrote:Every time i read this i see a blanket

...and suggest you have a fixation on items, often knitted or woven, that can be used by people as bed coverings. But I wouldnt do that as it would be a fairly pointless thing to do.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Right Psychic powers are not modifiers, but they can grant modifiers. I thought you were talking about the effects of Powers, not the powers themselves.

There can be two of the same psychic power cast on a single unit, and if they grant the unit a modifier, these modifiers will stack as per P.2

To simplify, there cannot be two effects without two causes and if the causes don't stack then there can only ever be one cause. So you use Enfeeble a second time on a unit and resolve it. Now, without counting the power as being cumulative, how many Enfeebles are now effecting the unit?

Except there can be two of the same cause (Psychic power) cast on a single target unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except there can be two of the same cause (Psychic power) cast on a single target unit.

by definition if they are not cumulative and it will not matter how many times they are used.

To be more specific, powers themselves are nothing more than psychic abilities that a model or models possess and the text only states that effects of different powers are cumulative. Once a power is exorcised everything that happens after that is an effect of the ability including in the case of blessings/maledictions that it becomes active on the target and remains that way until the end of the next turn or a time specified in its description.

Whats stated as being cumulative:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." pg 68

Note power effects for maledictions/blessings:
"Blessings target a friendly unit(s) and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn." pg 68

"Maledictions target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the end of the following turn" pg 68

Note that powers themselves are never stated to be cumulative, only their effects. That does not matter though as the power itself is only used once an its over. All subsequent events under the power listing and type are effects of that power. IE targeting, psychic test, resolution, etc. Some are specific to that power and some are general for psychic powers in general or for the specific type.

Maledictions and Blessings are sustained as part of their effect and this is specifically where my issue with 'same' powers stacking comes in. How can you count more than one instance of Enfeeble sustained on a unit if they are not permitted to stack their effects. Counting more than one sustained effect on a unit is impossible because they are not permitted to be cumulative... and since you cannot count more than one sustained Enfeeble in effect on a unit, how do you justify more than a -1T no matter how many times you use the power on them.

You say you can use Enfeeble twice and resolve it twice so each should apply a -1T but that ignores the fact that there will only be one active Enfeeble effect sustained on the unit at any given point.

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

In my post from earlier, found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/180/6114707.page

There are two castings of engfeeble on a given unit.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

"Whilst the power is in effect" ("The power" means the one that has been cast, so you can have multiples of that power in effect at the same time).

 DeathReaper wrote:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

In my post from earlier, found here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/quote/180/6114707.page

There are two castings of engfeeble on a given unit.

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

"Whilst the power is in effect" ("The power" means the one that has been cast, so you can have multiples of that power in effect at the same time).

That it does not say they are not cumulative means nothing. That they are not said to be cumulative means they are not. They also don't say bolters are not assault weapons but they don't have to because they never say they are. 'They don't say I can't' means nothing unless they do tell you that you can.

Is Hammerhand a Malediction or Blessing? Why bring up that specific power that seems to be different than the rest? I've been using Enfeeble because it's a nice generic power out of the BRB with a stat modifier and seems fairly standard and straightforward for a Malediction. Other specific powers may work in unorthodox ways which could convolute the discussion.

So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Abandon - so youre trying to lay claim that you cannot have "hammerhand" twice on the same unit? Even though you are permitted to resolve the power, and thus the effect, twice?

That is a bizarre interpretation that does not fit into any rule that you can possibly provide.

"Hammerhand" is not on the unit twice, the psyker has cast ahmmerhand, and the effect is on the unit twice.

It has to accumulate, according to page 2

Sorry Nos, i missed this comment that was directed at me. TBH I don't know about hammerhand. Is it a blessing? I don't have the rules for it so I've been avoiding comment but by all appearance it seems to work in a non-standard way. If that is the case, why use it as an example for a general discussion about blessings/maledictions?

Hammerhand is the bastard child of the Grey Knights that breaks alot of rules itself. Overall its a bad example in this discussion.

Given that only a vague interpretation of the rules is really the obly support that 6th ed powers stack and multiple powers in 6th ed have had to state explicitly that they allow stacking I would call that a no that as a general rule the same power without specific exception allowing it to may not stack. regardless of source.

 Abandon wrote:


That it does not say they are not cumulative means nothing. That they are not said to be cumulative means they are not. They also don't say bolters are not assault weapons but they don't have to because they never say they are. 'They don't say I can't' means nothing unless they do tell you that you can.

Do you realize the BRB gives permission to cast a Psychic power on a single target unit multiple tiles from different Psykers?

So it is not "'They don't say I can't'" Because they definitely say that I can.

 Abandon wrote:

So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?

This is the part that is incorrect, the rules allow for Enfeeble, or any psychic power, to be cast on a single unit more than once.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


That it does not say they are not cumulative means nothing. That they are not said to be cumulative means they are not. They also don't say bolters are not assault weapons but they don't have to because they never say they are. 'They don't say I can't' means nothing unless they do tell you that you can.

Do you realize the BRB gives permission to cast a Psychic power on a single target unit multiple tiles from different Psykers?

So it is not "'They don't say I can't'" Because they definitely say that I can.

 Abandon wrote:

So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?

This is the part that is incorrect, the rules allow for Enfeeble, or any psychic power, to be cast on a single unit more than once.

It's not a question of how many time you can use the power. The question is - is it cumulative with itself? You have not come yet provided any substantial evidence that it does nor have you addressed the question in my last post so I'll repeat it.

 Abandon wrote:

So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?

 Abandon wrote:


It's not a question of how many time you can use the power. The question is - is it cumulative with itself? You have not come yet provided any substantial evidence that it does nor have you addressed the question in my last post so I'll repeat it.

Oh, but it is a question of how many times you can cast the power, because that is what makes it cumulative. (That and Page 2)

 Abandon wrote:
So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?

(Emphasis mine).

Well 2 enfeeble's are on that unit. each say to reduce toughness by -1, and P2 tells us these stack as per normal Math.

P.S. the underlined is not correct, unless you have a quote that says this.

Just to shift the conversation a bit from yes vs no arguments, can someone find/compile any non-BRB references to psychic powers being non-cumulative in FAQs or Codices relevant to their argument in case GW has set a precedence on this matter?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:


It's not a question of how many time you can use the power. The question is - is it cumulative with itself? You have not come yet provided any substantial evidence that it does nor have you addressed the question in my last post so I'll repeat it.

Oh, but it is a question of how many times you can cast the power, because that is what makes it cumulative. (That and Page 2)

 Abandon wrote:
So you use Enfeeble twice on a unit. Since they are not cumulative, how many Enfeeble effects are sustained on them?

Well 2 enfeeble's are on that unit. each say to reduce toughness by -1, and P2 tells us these stack as per normal Math.

By definition the ability to add more or not does not define something as cumulative or non-cumulative. It in fact says nothing about it at all. Cumulative/non-cumulative does however describe to a degree how something will react to additional application of more of the same.

Page 2 tell us to stack modifiers, no more, no less. If I asked you to count the total modifiers it would apply.

I asked you to count the total number of Enfeeble effects active on a unit and you tell me there are two. That is of course impossible as they are not cumulative. Without accumulation two can never be reached from one. Hate to bring in the dictionary but:

Cumulative
"adjective
increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions:" -Oxford Dictionary

You have 'increased the quantity' of active Enfeebles on the unit by 'successive additions' AKA treated them cumulatively. That is not permitted for the effects of psychic powers that are not different and Enfeeble becoming active on a unit is definitely an effect of the power.. Non-cumulatively this time, how many Enfeebles are active on the unit?

 WarOne wrote:
Just to shift the conversation a bit from yes vs no arguments, can someone find/compile any non-BRB references to psychic powers being non-cumulative in FAQs or Codices relevant to their argument in case GW has set a precedence on this matter?

page 71 of the chaos dex both gift of contagion and symphony of pain specify that they are cumulative. if such powers were ment to be cumulative to begin with it seems redundant making such specifications.

 Abandon wrote:
I asked you to count the total number of Enfeeble effects active on a unit and you tell me there are two. That is of course impossible as they are not cumulative.

(Emphasis mine).
Citation needed for the underlined.

We have permission to cas t the power on the same unit with two different Psykers, Find the denial or restriction, page and Graph please.

 Abandon wrote:
You have 'increased the quantity' of active Enfeebles on the unit by 'successive additions' AKA treated them cumulatively. That is not permitted for the effects of psychic powers that are not different and Enfeeble becoming active on a unit is definitely an effect of the power...

I take it you have a citation that says this as well?

 Abandon wrote:
Non-cumulatively this time, how many Enfeebles are active on the unit?

If you manage to prove that enfeeble can not be cast twice on the same unit, then I will anser this, but as it stands this question has no bearing on the discussion.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
I asked you to count the total number of Enfeeble effects active on a unit and you tell me there are two. That is of course impossible as they are not cumulative.

(Emphasis mine).
Citation needed for the underlined.

We have permission to cas t the power on the same unit with two different Psykers, Find the denial or restriction, page and Graph please.

So now you're asking for a citation that says you can't. Prove that casting the sane psychic power on the same unit twice means that you have 2 of that psychic power in effect on the unit. We know multiple modifiers stack what Abandon is asking you to prove is that we have multiple modifiers. So page and paragraph that proves you resolve multiple instances of the same power cumulatively. If you can't prove that Abandon will continue to assume that they are not cumulative.

 Abandon wrote:
You have 'increased the quantity' of active Enfeebles on the unit by 'successive additions' AKA treated them cumulatively. That is not permitted for the effects of psychic powers that are not different and Enfeeble becoming active on a unit is definitely an effect of the power...

I take it you have a citation that says this as well?

He's not stating rules here he stating what you've put forward as rules.

 Abandon wrote:
Non-cumulatively this time, how many Enfeebles are active on the unit?

If you manage to prove that enfeeble can not be cast twice on the same unit, then I will anser this, but as it stands this question has no bearing on the discussion.

 Bausk wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Just to shift the conversation a bit from yes vs no arguments, can someone find/compile any non-BRB references to psychic powers being non-cumulative in FAQs or Codices relevant to their argument in case GW has set a precedence on this matter?

page 71 of the chaos dex both gift of contagion and symphony of pain specify that they are cumulative. if such powers were ment to be cumulative to begin with it seems redundant making such specifications.

And GW never posts redundant rules?

Not what i said and not a great argument for the procumulative. But thanks for reminding us all that gw don't write perfect rules, I'm sure if they did we'd all be doing something else.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Bausk wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
Just to shift the conversation a bit from yes vs no arguments, can someone find/compile any non-BRB references to psychic powers being non-cumulative in FAQs or Codices relevant to their argument in case GW has set a precedence on this matter?

page 71 of the chaos dex both gift of contagion and symphony of pain specify that they are cumulative. if such powers were ment to be cumulative to begin with it seems redundant making such specifications.

And GW never posts redundant rules?

So is this true the rule from page 71 of Codex: CSM has to give permission for cumulative stacking or is it a reminder?

 WarOne wrote:
So is this true the rule from page 71 of Codex: CSM has to give permission for cumulative stacking or is it a reminder?

Yes. It is either permission for a specific power, or a reminder.

 Happyjew wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
So is this true the rule from page 71 of Codex: CSM has to give permission for cumulative stacking or is it a reminder?

Yes. It is either permission for a specific power, or a reminder.

I think that it would be an awfully odd reminder. Hysterical Frenzy is basically blessing version of Gift of Contagion, yet other has this text about stacking while other doesn't not. I don't believe they would have written it that way if they intended them both to work similarly.

 Crimson wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
So is this true the rule from page 71 of Codex: CSM has to give permission for cumulative stacking or is it a reminder?

Yes. It is either permission for a specific power, or a reminder.

I think that it would be an awfully odd reminder. Hysterical Frenzy is basically blessing version of Gift of Contagion, yet other has this text about stacking while other doesn't not. I don't believe they would have written it that way if they intended them both to work similarly.

So you're trying to argue intent? I just want to clarify - you seem to have gone back and forth on that during this discussion.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you're trying to argue intent? I just want to clarify - you seem to have gone back and forth on that during this discussion.

We were discussing for the reason that sentence was included. That kinda means it has to be about intent, as we are trying to figure out what the writer was thinking. Besides, I'm pretty sure that I said in my first* post in this tread that I don't care about RAW regarding this matter, merely the intent, which to me is clear enough.

EDIT *) so it actually was my fourth post, I had forgotten I had posted already on page one some links to the previous threads.

While I believe the intent was for most maledictions not to be stackable, I also believe my opinions on the matter are irrelevant outside of my own gaming circle, and am curious why others think they have such great insight into the devs' minds that their opinions should be relevant to this discussion.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
While I believe the intent was for most maledictions not to be stackable, I also believe my opinions on the matter are irrelevant outside of my own gaming circle, and am curious why others think they have such great insight into the devs' minds that their opinions should be relevant to this discussion.

Why our opinions on anything would really be relevant to anyone in the internet? This is a message board, it's purpose is ultimately rather meaningless discussion.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
While I believe the intent was for most maledictions not to be stackable, I also believe my opinions on the matter are irrelevant outside of my own gaming circle, and am curious why others think they have such great insight into the devs' minds that their opinions should be relevant to this discussion.

Because otherwise threads would be:

1. Question
2. Answer
3. See above.
4, Answer. Edit Ninja'd.
5. Answer. Edit Ninja'd
6. Stupid comment that has no relevance to the topic at hand.
7. Mod locks for people being stupid.

Currently, it is
1. Question
2. Answer based on rules.
3. Counter-claim based on rules.
Whether or not "Answer" or "Counter-claim" have any actual basis in the rules is something else.
4. You're wrong.
5. No, you're wrong.
6 Citation.
7. U are stoopid.
8. And you're a troll. Please answer question.
9 Repeat steps 4-8 until Mod locks for people being stupid (generally 10 pages in).