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.

I will say this on hammerhan upon another read over. I see no reason for it not being able to stack. Reason being it is not a blessing and as such would not be bound by its rules.

However this does not change my position on 6th ed powers that are blessings and maledictions.

At some point somebody asked about the FAQ ruling allowing Hammerhand to stack in 5th edition. As I'm too lazy to look for the actual post and quote it...

This is from the 5th edition BRB FAQ (v 1.5)

Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

 Happyjew wrote:
At some point somebody asked about the FAQ ruling allowing Hammerhand to stack in 5th edition. As I'm too lazy to look for the actual post and quote it...

This is from the 5th edition BRB FAQ (v 1.5)

Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

If only they could had kept consistent and put that in the 6th ed BRB; would be one less excruciatingly long debate.

Well gw change things from edition to edition. This discussion is simply a result of the possible change they made when they overhauled the whole psyker rules.

none the less nothing stops powers without a defined type like hammer hand from stacking as far as i can see. Well unless the power or faq says otherwise.

 Bausk wrote:
Well gw change things from edition to edition. This discussion is simply a result of the possible change they made when they overhauled the whole psyker rules.

none the less nothing stops powers without a defined type like hammer hand from stacking as far as i can see. Well unless the power or faq says otherwise.

Agreed, we cannot base something that once was as what is currently

sirlynchmob wrote:
In that context we are talking about the effect of enfeeble on a target unit. It bends or breaks the main game rules about terrain. The enfeeble effect on the unit meets all the criteria for a SR as laid out on pg 32.

enfeeble itself is not a SR it's a psychic power. pg 32 & 68 tell us psychic powers can cause SRs.
enfeeble the power effect on the unit is a SR. as pg 68 maledictions permits

Except that it does not appear on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex. as per the rules on page 32...

Therefore Enfeeble is not a special rule.

Psychic powers can grant SR's, enfeeble is not one of these powers however. Some powers that grant special rules are: Iron arm, Endurance, Foreboding, Perfect Timing etc...

Question. Is enfeeble a 5th ed power? If so it would not be bound by the malediction rules unless it was stated to be a malediction. As such if that were true would be stackable provided its own rules allow it.

It seems that this discussion has been started a path aiming towards special rules. Let us not forget that a cause is not defined by the effect, the psychic power is not defined by it's modifier or SR. The power in itself is always classified as a power and not an SR or modifier even though it may grant these.

It seems that powers are broken due to the wording "characteristic boosts or additional special rules" when it is obvious that some powers can allow both (such as iron arm). My take is that this wording should be overlooked and seen as "and/or"

If you have two different powers but with the effects of having the same SR along with modifiers, these powers should be able to stack along with the modifiers but not the SR because of the restrictions contained in the SR section "unable to gain the benefit"- this does not mean you can't have that same SR put on a unit again, it just means it will have no additional effects



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:
Question. Is enfeeble a 5th ed power? If so it would not be bound by the malediction rules unless it was stated to be a malediction. As such if that were true would be stackable provided its own rules allow it.

I was a bit confused by your question, it's a malediction defined in the 6th ed BRB 419. Sorry if I'm not answering your question

Chills. provided they have permission to stack. as stated most 5th ed powers are not bound by the restrictions imposed by blessings and maledictions unless they are faq'd to be either. a such yes 5th ed powers that arw not faq'd and do not have a reatriction stated in the powers rules may stack.

However 6th ed powers fall into categories listed in the rule book. and as such they are bound by those rules, unless it is otherwise stated in the powers rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No that answers it perfectly. if it is a 6th ed power listed as a malediction without an exception written into its rules then it won't stack.

 Bausk wrote:
Chills. provided they have permission to stack. as stated most 5th ed powers are not bound by the restrictions imposed by blessings and maledictions unless they are faq'd to be either. a such yes 5th ed powers that arw not faq'd and do not have a reatriction stated in the powers rules may stack.

However 6th ed powers fall into categories listed in the rule book. and as such they are bound by those rules, unless it is otherwise stated in the powers rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No that answers it perfectly. if it is a 6th ed power listed as a malediction without an exception written into its rules then it won't stack.

Interesting, I am quite ignorant in anything before 6th ed, so it's always nice to learn something new! But yea enfeeble is classified in 6th ed as a malediction in the BRB. Also a personal inquiry- are you allowed to use 5th ed powers if you are playing a game by 6th ed rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm thinking that by the BRB powers, because codex's don't all come out at the same time...

4th and 5th ed psykers can either use codex powers or roll on allowed disciplines. If they roll on the disciplines they do not get codex powers.

So for example a Hive Tyrant would choose codex powers during list creation (say The Horror and Paroxysm). When deploying the Tyranid player can choose to keep those powers or roll twice on one of the disciplines.

We always have permission to use the most current rules. Orks for example are a late 4th ed codex, if we didn't have permission to use the most current rules for Orks they could not be used at all. As I'm out and about at the moment I can't quote the page number but in the psychic powers section it states that some powers will not have a subtype (like witchfire, blessing, malediction etc). With these powers you follpw the basic casting process but use the rules listed in the powers listing along with any relevant faq.

pretty much read that as older powers won't have a type unless they are faq'd to have a type. if they don't thwn just use the basic rules along with any restrictions and allowances that the power states.

Thanks Happy and Bausk, always nice to know these things!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[Relevant rules posted by me - check. Relevant rules posted by you - nope, still missing.

What relevant rules?
When are you going to post some. Please break your behaviour in this thread and do just that.

Your argument basically is ...
We have permission to cast X number of powers on the same unit. (This is indisputable.)
The power must be resolved, there is no denial that same powers stack.
If the power requires stat modifiers, then p2 shows how this works.

Is that ^ a fair assessment?

If it is, then you are wrong, your argument is irrelevant and insignificant.

Lets actually follow the rules and trace the real permissions we have when using psychic powers instead of your irrelevant wailing about modifiers.

Psyker 1 casts enfeeble at unit 1, it is successful and the effects of enfeeble are in play regarding unit 1. This means that enfeeble is "active" on unit 1.
Psyker 2 wants to cast enfeeble on unit 1. He has permission to do this and is successful. This means that 2 instances of enfeeble are "active" on unit 1.

At this point, we are about to figure out what this means (for the T modifiers, ignore the terrain effects for the sake of argument).

According to pg2, we have two modifiers in effect, so -1 and -1 equals -2. This is not in dispute afaiac.
But, in order to have both of these modifiers in effect, we need permission for the effects of 2 instances of same power to be cumulative.

Where can this be found? NOWHERE.

The permission that we actually have, are
"...the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative ..."
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."

"Different" powers are the only powers whose effects can be cumulative, according to the actual permissions we have.

Why do you require a denial when we have permission for only different powers effects to be cumulative???
To make it the same as special rules? Why? Why is that necessary?
Why should two entirely distinct sections of the rules be worded in the same manner?

Your argument is "it doesn't say we can't, so we can."
Its a piece of nonsense.
My argument on the other hand, is "it never says we can, so we can't."

Who is actually following the rules laid out in the book here? It certainly isn't you.
It is entirely possible, to have any number of fully resolved enfeebles on a single unit, all of them will be active on said unit.
The power, is this sense, is cumulative.
We have no permission anywhere, for the effects of multiple instances of this one power to be cumulative. Nowhere at all.

Even if we ignore the terrain element of enfeeble, enfeeble itself, is a power, therefore, the power is governed by the rules relevant to powers, not modifiers.
The power, enfeeble is not a modifier.
The effect of the power, will be a modifier.

We have explicit permission to treat modifiers as cumulative.
We do not have any permission at all, to treat the effects of anything but different powers as cumulative.

If it is there, find it and quote it.

Fantastic summation. Added to this there is only specific statements of permission for multiple instances of the same power to stack given on some but not all blessings and maledictions in 6th ed power listings.

put simply the evidence shows us that by default multiple castings of a power with the same name (read as the same power) have no permission to stack or have their effects becume cumulative. Quoting the rules for blessings and maledictions; Unless otherwise stated.

Insignificant and irrelevant? Wonderful turn of phrase that just makes pepole ache to continue a debate.

Where are you given permission to group "the effects" and consider their stacking before the stacking of the actual effects? You arent. You are making up a condition that must be satisfied, and claiming victory because people cannot find a rule allowing your made up condition to be satisfied.

The rules ARE clear on this - you have permission to resolve -1T, and resolve terrain, as that is what is involved in RESOLVING the powers. If you do not apply -1T, you have not resolved Enfeeble - you are at preresolution.

Yes, there is no permission to stack unresolved states. Brilliabntly, however, given there is no requirement to need to do that, we can move straight on to ACTUALLY resolving the powers

In summation - we HAVE quoted the relevant permssions, we have not quoted permission for the made up requirement that you have imposed. Shockingly enough, one is relevant, the other is entirely irrelevant

Lock time, as yet again one side seem compelled to throw insults.

Too bad Nos blocked me. bet he'd be happy that I conceded stacking on Hammerhand. But none the less, I can still see his posts and use his logic against him.

Asking us to cite a specific rule that states such powers can't stack is equally pointless as no specific phrasing exists in the power section for either side. However this is not our argument.

Our argument that Nos and others refuse to address directly is niether side has specific permission or denial. But the phrasing in blessings and maledictions indicates that same named powers should not stack. Which is further bolstered by the specific exceptions on some blessings and maledictions and the lack of this specific exception on others.

 fuusa wrote:
But, in order to have both of these modifiers in effect, we need permission for the effects of 2 instances of same power to be cumulative.

I've actually yet to see someone prove that permission to resolve a power is denied because an explicit statement that there is permission for the effects of multiple instances of the same power is not in the rulebook.

And who insulted who? I mean besides me insulting Matt Ward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
But, in order to have both of these modifiers in effect, we need permission for the effects of 2 instances of same power to be cumulative.

I've actually yet to see someone prove that permission to resolve a power is denied because an explicit statement that there is permission for the effects of multiple instances of the same power is not in the rulebook.

As I just posted. Neither side has express specific phrasing for permission or denial. But relevant evidence in the phrasing of blessings and maledictions indicates that same powers should not stack. Further backed by cited blessings and maledictions with specific allowance to stack with themselves.

This is the basis for the argument, the rulea for targeting are not in dispute as we agree that you may target a unit already affectes by the same power. page two is not in dispute as it only pertains to modifiers. What is disputed is if the blessing/malediction is able to stack without specific allowance like those powers mentioned in said argument.

I agree that some blessings/maledictions may or may not stack depending on their wording, I just disagree with fuusa that there is no permission to resolve the effects of 2 of the same malediction/enfeeble on a single target within the general rules for blessings/maledictions.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I agree that some blessings/maledictions may or may not stack depending on their wording, I just disagree with fuusa that there is no permission to resolve the effects of 2 of the same malediction/enfeeble on a single target within the general rules for blessings/maledictions.

Granted. But there is no express permission either. There's no denial or permission, only an indication and a handful of exceptions to that indication. While it's not express denial, it is better than not having an indication.

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not true, Enfeeble, or its effects are not special rules, unless you have a quote saying they are.

Special rules are found on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

So what is this phrase then?

"treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain"

is that a rule?
fluff?
a reminder?
irrelevant?

If it's not a rule then you don't need to do it. It is a rule though that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. which is represented by a special rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where are you given permission to group "the effects" and consider their stacking before the stacking of the actual effects? You arent.

Of course you are.

Its obvious that the -1T of enfeeble, is an effect of the power, or do you deny that?
You need to know if the effects of the power are cumulative, before you start considering them as modifiers.
If you cannot prove the effects are cumulative, then multiple instances cannot be considered as multiple modifiers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are making up a condition that must be satisfied, and claiming victory because people cannot find a rule allowing your made up condition to be satisfied.

So, you do deny that you need to know which effects are cumulative, before you apply them as multiple modifiers.
That's the condition you think I have "made up."

Claiming victory, ho ho ho. That sounds like something you would do. Not me.

There is a reason the horse comes before the cart, you know.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, there is no permission to stack unresolved states. Brilliabntly, however, given there is no requirement to need to do that, we can move straight on to ACTUALLY resolving the powers

What "unresolved states?"
You accuse me of making stuff up and dream this up from where, exactly?
The 2 enfeebles are entirely resolved.
The effects have no permission to be cumulative.
Done, no "unresolved states."

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Lock time, as yet again one side seem compelled to throw insults.

That would be convenient for you, your argument is in tatters.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
But, in order to have both of these modifiers in effect, we need permission for the effects of 2 instances of same power to be cumulative.

I've actually yet to see someone prove that permission to resolve a power is denied because an explicit statement that there is permission for the effects of multiple instances of the same power is not in the rulebook.

I think you misunderstand me.

The 2 enfeebles can be fully resolved, while only one -1T actually gets applied.

The reason for this, is that before the two -1T's can be considered multiple modifiers, they are effects of the power.
Therefore, the effects need to be cumulative in order for them to actually be "multiple" which is where p2 becomes relevant.

The only permission, is to have different powers effects be cumulative.

Before the effects ever become multiple, we need to know they are cumulative, or else they cannot be added together, there is no-permission to have these enfeeble effects be considered as cumulative.
Non cumulative = no multiple modifier, just one.

Specific rules trump the more basic rules presented in the BRB. Fuusa has presented a strong justified interpretation. Which I personally see no faults.

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[Relevant rules posted by me - check. Relevant rules posted by you - nope, still missing.

Your argument basically is ...
We have permission to cast X number of powers on the same unit. (This is indisputable.)
The power must be resolved, there is no denial that same powers stack.
If the power requires stat modifiers, then p2 shows how this works.

Is that ^ a fair assessment?

If it is, then you are wrong, your argument is irrelevant and insignificant.
If it is there, find it and quote it.

Let's be polite fuusa, his argument is not illogical in the order of its operation and should not be classified as insignificant. it seems that no denial given means that the power to stack in his eyes and from that he says that modifiers stack.

-Nos, I feel the great majority agree that if the power stacks so does the modifiers. But the opposition of your stance (not necessarily the majority) view that the same powers do not stack due to a strongly justified RAI

 Bausk wrote:
Our argument that Nos and others refuse to address directly is niether side has specific permission or denial. But the phrasing in blessings and maledictions indicates that same named powers should not stack. Which is further bolstered by the specific exceptions on some blessings and maledictions and the lack of this specific exception on others.

That is not true at all.

Different powers stack Does not = same powers do not stack.

No matter how much you think it does.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not true, Enfeeble, or its effects are not special rules, unless you have a quote saying they are.

Special rules are found on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

So what is this phrase then?

"treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain"

is that a rule?
fluff?
a reminder?
irrelevant?

If it's not a rule then you don't need to do it. It is a rule though that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. which is represented by a special rule.

It is a rule, but not a special rule, as it is not in the special rules section and not made abundantly clear in a codex.

1) Special rules are found on pages 32-43 Agreed?

2) Enfeeble is not in a codex so this part does not apply ("Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)) Agreed?

3) Enfeeble does not make it "abundantly clear." about granting Special Rules Agreed? (It is not clear to me, therefore it did not make it "abundantly clear.")

Therefore since all 3 are true Enfeeble is not a special rule, not does it grant any special rules.

"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." (32)

 chillis wrote:
Let's be polite fuusa, his argument is not illogical in the order of its operation and should not be classified as insignificant. it seems that no denial given means that the power to stack in his eyes and from that he says that modifiers stack.

Apologies if my tone offends, but when arguing with someone like him, it is disappointingly easy to slip into their ways of arguing.

His argument is illogical, however.
He is attempting to add up modifiers before it can be known how many there can be, when he should be looking for effects that have permission to be cumulative that can only then be seen as (multiple) modifiers.

This really can be reduced to a group of numbers, so go and add them up.
The complication, is some of the numbers are allowed permission to be added, some have no written permission.
Without knowing which ones have permission to be included, there is no-way to come to a "legal" total.

He is missing out a stage in its entirety, that is following the rules, where they identify what can be added together.
If there exists permission to only add certain numbers, the other numbers are not usable.

Page 68 tells us which numbers can be added together, page 2 tells us how to add them up.
Which page of rules (not assumptions), do you think must be satisfied first?

Consider this below, in the light of the above.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where are you given permission to group "the effects" and consider their stacking before the stacking of the actual effects? You arent.

Page 68 or page 2, in rules terms, which has to come first?

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
That is not true, Enfeeble, or its effects are not special rules, unless you have a quote saying they are.

Special rules are found on pages 32-43 since it is not on these pages, and not laid out in the codex, it is not a special rule, as SR's are in the BRB on pages 32-43 or laid out in a codex.

"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)

So what is this phrase then?

"treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain"

is that a rule?
fluff?
a reminder?
irrelevant?

If it's not a rule then you don't need to do it. It is a rule though that breaks or bends one of the main game rules. which is represented by a special rule.

It is a rule, but not a special rule, as it is not in the special rules section and not made abundantly clear in a codex.

1) Special rules are found on pages 32-43 Agreed?

2) Enfeeble is not in a codex so this part does not apply ("Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex." (32)) Agreed?

3) Enfeeble does not make it "abundantly clear." about granting Special Rules Agreed? (It is not clear to me, therefore it did not make it "abundantly clear.")

Therefore since all 3 are true Enfeeble is not a special rule, not does it grant any special rules.

"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." (32)

1, yes
2, yes
3, no, We agree it does grant a rule and the only type of rule it can be is a special rule because it bends or breaks the main game rules about terrain. To me that is abundantly clear.

Would it sound better if we call the enfeeble effect on a unit an ability? Because again pg 32 would lead to the conclusion that it is also a special rule.

How about we agree to disagree here on the outcomes and go at it fresh next month when it comes up again

@ sirlynchmob, so The terrain effect is on pages 32-43? or is it in a codex? I can not find it either of those places that we are told SR reside...

 DeathReaper wrote:
@ sirlynchmob, so The terrain effect is on pages 32-43? or is it in a codex? I can not find it either of those places that we are told SR reside...

Where in the open terrain area rules does it say to treat it as difficult terrain? Doesn't the rule under enfeeble change the terrain rules for open terrain?

Does maledictions say it inflicts rules? nope, just inflicts special rules. We agree "treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain" is a rule so it must be a special rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
@ sirlynchmob, so The terrain effect is on pages 32-43? or is it in a codex? I can not find it either of those places that we are told SR reside...

Clarify something please.

Do you mean to say, that all special rules are laid out or at least listed, in the special rules section, any that are not, will be in a codex?