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:

rigeld2 wrote:

Why does it matter why that sentence is there? The fact (absolutely demonstrable) is that it does not say same psychic powers do not stack - you're inventing that.

Because unlike you I care about RAI

I do care about it. I rarely care about discussing it on a message board and instead prefer to discuss it with the people I play with regularly.

and don't assume GW writes intentionally misleading rules. And as RAW is actually unknowable (as it hinges on what 'this power' in the power descriptions refers to), RAI actually matters.

I don't assume they write intentionally misleading rules. I assume they have little proofreading skills and don't understand how their written rules actually interact - because that's demonstrably true based on the number of typographical errors in addition to the number of rules that get FAQed/errataed to be nothing like they were originally written.

But keep thinking I'm a horrible person. It's cute.

I don't think you're a horrible person. However, I'm not sure I get your point of view. If you don't trust that the writers having a clue, what's the point of any of this? Why would we even care what these people write, if what they produce is just a random mess?

I actually think they have a pretty good idea of how they intended the rules to work. However, as they are human beings, they sometimes neglect to mention things that are obvious to them (as they obviously know how it works.) This is actually quite common thing in any written rules. (For example, note how there is an exception to the normal rule that models cannot move though each other in the Fall Back section, however, no such normal rule actually exist.) I think this stacking thing and the witchfire issues are both products of this.

 Crimson wrote:
I don't think you're a horrible person. However, I'm not sure I get your point of view. If you don't trust that the writers having a clue, what's the point of any of this? Why would we even care what these people write, if what they produce is just a random mess?

Because I enjoy playing games with my friends. The game they prefer to play is 40k.

I actually think they have a pretty good idea of how they intended the rules to work. However, as they are human beings, they sometimes neglect to mention things that are obvious to them (as they obviously know how it works.) This is actually quite common thing in any written rules. (For example, note how there is an exception to the normal rule that models cannot move though each other in the Fall Back section, however, no such normal rule actually exist.) I think this stacking thing and the witchfire issues are both products of this.

The - likely deliberately considering how much of it is copy/paste - removed the rule talking about models moving through each other when writing the 6th edition book. The fact that they failed to leave it in (or failed to take out the "reminder") is evidence of a lack of proofreading ability. The rest is a lack of any playtesting aside from the authors of the rules - having the authors test things is perhaps the worst way to actually test something.

cimson above is correct, people keep asking for a restriction (ie to prove a negative IE poor debate practice) when they cannot find permission for their desired action.

that you cannot find direct permission for the same power to stack, as we can EASILY and obviously find for different powers, is what restricts it. lack of permission is enough to not permit an action in 40k.

also lack of a restriction, is not de facto permission, despite the "stackers" that keep insisting on 40 being a restrictive ruleset,

RAI is 100% clear, no special rule/power stacks with itself unless specifically noted, and all different rules/powers do stack unless specifically noted.

RAW is also 100% clear, different powers stack

same powers have no permission to stack, so they do not stack.


again, stop asking for a negative to be proven, that is not following tennants, and is not how proper debates work

same with permission to cast being "permission" to stack... it is not the same thing, claiming it is, over and over, does not change that fact

I very strongly disagree with both your RAW and RAI interpretations easysauce.

It's been shown many, many (many) times that permission has been granted. At no point is that taken away. So RAW it is allowed.

From a RAI standpoint, psychic powers and special rules share almost identical wording yet special rules are not allowed to stack. That wording is absent in psychic powers. Good indication of intent.

And for many people, different instances of the same thing are in fact different. Two castings of the same power can easily be considered different.

 grendel083 wrote:

It's been shown many, many (many) times that permission has been granted. At no point is that taken away. So RAW it is allowed.

The permission is not granted. RAW on this hinges on meaning of 'this power' which is uncertain.

From a RAI standpoint, psychic powers and special rules share almost identical wording yet special rules are not allowed to stack. That wording is absent in psychic powers. Good indication of intent.

That the last part of that sentence is missing, is the exact reason this thread exists. However, it seems exactly the sort of omission I mentioned earlier, the designer forgot to write down something that is clear to him. Writing 'different stack' doesn't make sense otherwise.

And for many people, different instances of the same thing are in fact different. Two castings of the same power can easily be considered different.

This cannot be true. If it was, then a single psyker could cast multiple Enfeebles (or any other powers) in a single turn, as each casting would be different, and thus not bound by the rule that prevents casting same power multiple times.

 easysauce wrote:
cimson above is correct, people keep asking for a restriction (ie to prove a negative IE poor debate practice) when they cannot find permission for their desired action.

that you cannot find direct permission for the same power to stack, as we can EASILY and obviously find for different powers, is what restricts it. lack of permission is enough to not permit an action in 40k.

also lack of a restriction, is not de facto permission, despite the "stackers" that keep insisting on 40 being a restrictive ruleset,

RAI is 100% clear, no special rule/power stacks with itself unless specifically noted, and all different rules/powers do stack unless specifically noted.

RAW is also 100% clear, different powers stack

same powers have no permission to stack, so they do not stack.


again, stop asking for a negative to be proven, that is not following tennants, and is not how proper debates work

same with permission to cast being "permission" to stack... it is not the same thing, claiming it is, over and over, does not change that fact

Actually, it can be how debates work.
It's been proved that there is permission to cast a power. It's been proven that there is permission to resolve a power.
A power requires a modifier to be applied. Your position requires the modifier not to be applied. Please, using an actual rule, explain why.

I don't understand how this modifier is being used to prove that stacking is legal. To apply the modifier you have to stack... Let's make enfeeble= A, modifier=B and the caster =#.
A1 -->B
A2-->B
If we have B we can not discern whether or not it results from A1, A2, both, or neither. We only know the effects of A1 and A2 and that two instances of A1 (A1+A1) or A2 (A2+A2) cannot happen. It simply leads to the argument of whether or not A1 and A2 are different and able to stack which then leads to the modifiers adding up. The modifiers are not the psychic powers, the psychic powers result in modifiers

 chillis wrote:
I don't understand how this modifier is being used to prove that stacking is legal. To apply the modifier you have to stack... Let's make enfeeble= A, modifier=B and the caster =#.
A1 -->B
A2-->B
If we have B we can not discern whether or not it results from A1, A2, both, or neither. We only know the effects of A1 and A2 and that two instances of A1 (A1+A1) or A2 (A2+A2) cannot happen. It simply leads to the argument of whether or not A1 and A2 are different and able to stack which then leads to the modifiers adding up. The modifiers are not the psychic powers, the psychic powers result in modifiers

I'm confused - can you back up the bolded sentence with actual rules?

I thought that was poorly written. The same caster can't use the same blessing/malediction multiple times the same turn.

A1 requires a modifier to be applied.
A2 requires a modifier to be applied.

They both require a modifier to be applied for the power to be resolved. How are you resolving the power and not applying a relevant modifier?

how are you applying an additional modifier if the power cannot be cumulative? Maybe its replacing the original casting. Both will have been resolved and both will have added the modifiers when they were casted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not arguing against no stacking, I'm saying that using modifiers to prove that psychic powers stack is the wrong route. For the modifiers to stack the psychic powers have to stack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And psychic powers stacking occurs before modifiers

Why are you assuming they do not "stack"? (in quotes because they can't stack the way the word is normally used, ie. apply cumulative modifiers because they aren't modifiers)

Look at it this way:

Psyker 1 generates warp charge, expends charge, passes his test, applies enfeeble to necron wraiths which fail DTW. Power is resolved taking them from t4 to t3.

All permissions granted and rules followed.

Psyker 2 generates warp charge, expends charge, passes his test, applies enfeeble to necron wraiths which fail DTW. Power is resolved taking them from t3 to t2.

If you assert that RAW has been broken, please support it with a rule and location. Since the process is identical for each, and permission to resolve is granted, you need an explicit restriction on resolving the second.

RAI isn't clear either. "Different" has many dictionary definitions, one of which is "additional". So everyone's favorite phrase can be parsed as "additional maledictions are cumulative".

It's also worth noting that Adepticon and NOVA both ruled that same powers from different psykers are cumulative. Considering RAW supports stacking and the largest tournaments in America agreed on this, how far are you willing to fight this?

I'm just going off p. 68 with the multiple different psychic powers are cumulative. When you make the modifiers stack you are assuming that two different casting of enfeeble are considered different. I'm fine with this- I see this point of view and I have no problems with this. But if a person thinks the powers are the same then the modifiers do not stack because one power replaces the other because they are not cumulative.-please don't tell me what I should quote, we can all use some civil open mindedness reasoning and RAI.
Basically both sides are justified, I just don't see the modifiers as being a great pillar for one argument.

 chillis wrote:
I'm just going off p. 68 with the multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

Which has what relevance when discussing different powers?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Look at it this way:

Psyker 1 generates warp charge, expends charge, passes his test, applies enfeeble to necron wraiths which fail DTW. Power is resolved taking them from t4 to t3.

All permissions granted and rules followed.

Psyker 2 generates warp charge, expends charge, passes his test, applies enfeeble to necron wraiths which fail DTW. Power is resolved taking them from t3 to t2.

If you assert that RAW has been broken, please support it with a rule and location. Since the process is identical for each, and permission to resolve is granted, you need an explicit restriction on resolving the second.

RAI isn't clear either. "Different" has many dictionary definitions, one of which is "additional". So everyone's favorite phrase can be parsed as "additional maledictions are cumulative".

It's also worth noting that Adepticon and NOVA both ruled that same powers from different psykers are cumulative. Considering RAW supports stacking and the largest tournaments in America agreed on this, how far are you willing to fight this?

If you are referring to me, I am a bit confused why you think I'm fighting for or against. RAW has stacking, it depends on RAI in some instances such as this. Tournaments, well thats just how some tournaments rule and there were some instances previously in this thread that showed they have ruled wrong. How far will I fight? I like to be a medium for things that are simply trivial squabbles where people could be helped to see the other side of things. I didn't say that one power was not resolved, I was giving view points and alternatives from RAI because RAI is unclear as you have said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 chillis wrote:
I'm just going off p. 68 with the multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

Which has what relevance when discussing different powers?

We have explicit RAW evidence that different powers are cumulative, this is not presented with powers that are the same. Which leads to the RAI

 hyv3mynd wrote:

RAI isn't clear either. "Different" has many dictionary definitions, one of which is "additional". So everyone's favorite phrase can be parsed as "additional maledictions are cumulative".

In the context of Psychic Powers, it absolutely cannot mean that. As I explained earlier, it would destroy the rule about psyker being not able to cast same power multiple times. It must mean 'a power with different name.' This is also how 'same' and 'different' are used in the Special Rules chapter.

It's also worth noting that Adepticon and NOVA both ruled that same powers from different psykers are cumulative. Considering RAW supports stacking and the largest tournaments in America agreed on this, how far are you willing to fight this?

Didn't they also think that drop pods lose hull points when they land?

 Crimson wrote:

It's also worth noting that Adepticon and NOVA both ruled that same powers from different psykers are cumulative. Considering RAW supports stacking and the largest tournaments in America agreed on this, how far are you willing to fight this?

Didn't they also think that drop pods lose hull points when they land?

Which was 100% supported until GW counter-FAQ'd it. If you remember the entirety of 5th edition, drop pods counted as damaged vehicles the second they arrived and awarded half of their VP's just by hitting the table.

rigeld2 wrote:

A power requires a modifier to be applied.

is not 100% true now is it

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A power requires a modifier to be applied.

is not 100% true now is it

Yes, it is. Have evidence otherwise?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Look at it this way:

Psyker 1 generates warp charge, expends charge, passes his test, applies enfeeble to necron wraiths which fail DTW. Power is resolved taking them from t4 to t3.

All permissions granted and rules followed.

Psyker 2 generates warp charge, expends charge, passes his test, applies enfeeble to necron wraiths which fail DTW. Power is resolved taking them from t3 to t2.

If you assert that RAW has been broken, please support it with a rule and location. Since the process is identical for each, and permission to resolve is granted, you need an explicit restriction on resolving the second.

While there is nothing in the psychic power rules that suggest having a previous power cast on a unit prevents another instance of the same power from resolving as normal, the wording of Enfeeble could indicate that a unit is only able to be under the effect of "the power" once. So RAW may or may not have been broken, depending on what RAW actually is.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A power requires a modifier to be applied.

is not 100% true now is it

Yes, it is. Have evidence otherwise?

cast enfeeble on a vehicle

Yes, its T characteristic has been reduced. It doesnt have one, so this has no effect.

Your point?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A power requires a modifier to be applied.

is not 100% true now is it

Yes, it is. Have evidence otherwise?

cast enfeeble on a vehicle

OhyoutotAllygotmebroomg.yourethefirsttobringthatup.com

How about reading the thread and not repeating the same tires, debunked arguments ad nauseum?

RAI I don't think it is supposed to stack, simply because powers like enfeeble or an eldar power (drain I think, either way decreases strength by one) become way to powerful. I.E. with three pykers with enfeeble you could kill an entire unit of thirty gaunts/guardsmen or with the eldar power ork boys in one phase by reducing their toughness/strength to 0.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A power requires a modifier to be applied.

is not 100% true now is it

Yes, it is. Have evidence otherwise?

cast enfeeble on a vehicle

OhyoutotAllygotmebroomg.yourethefirsttobringthatup.com

How about reading the thread and not repeating the same tires, debunked arguments ad nauseum?

You mean pages 3-4 where you do your utmost to avoid it altogether ?
I guess your childish posting means your done now ?

kambien wrote:


You mean pages 3-4 where you do your utmost to avoid it altogether ?
I guess your childish posting means your done now ?

"You're"

That is only because you called him a child

I play it that the powers from different models are indeed different and that is how it was ruled in my play area and the larger tournaments I've been in. So, +1 Stacking.

Stormbreed wrote:

kambien wrote:


You mean pages 3-4 where you do your utmost to avoid it altogether ?
I guess your childish posting means your done now ?

"You're"

That is only because you called him a child

I play it that the powers from different models are indeed different and that is how it was ruled in my play area and the larger tournaments I've been in. So, +1 Stacking.

Even with pg 142 LRB, pg 418 BRB saying different psychers can have the same power?

You guys are using magic the gathering thinking, in 40k same name = same power. Different names = different powers.

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
RAI I don't think it is supposed to stack, simply because powers like enfeeble or an eldar power (drain I think, either way decreases strength by one) become way to powerful. I.E. with three pykers with enfeeble you could kill an entire unit of thirty gaunts/guardsmen or with the eldar power ork boys in one phase by reducing their toughness/strength to 0.

According to page 68, maledictions "cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1."