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.

Do powers stack with each other?

Im mainly thinking about casting hammerhand twice or casting jinx/protect twice as eldar, i cant see anything in the BRB that addresses this one way or the other?

All I've got to say on the subject...

In my personal opinion, and the way I play it, yes. Wait don't shoot!!! And this entire discussion is going to break down to this line right here "Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative," (BRB page 68) it's going to turn into a fight over what "different" means.

Is that the only line that talks about stacking powers? hmmmm thats quite ambiguous :(

And to Waaaaghpower; Why no popcorn??? I'm hungry!!!

danny1995 wrote:
And to Waaaaghpower; Why no popcorn??? I'm hungry!!!

No popcorn until the show starts.

Welcome to the world of 40k

Even the line about different powers dosent even mention stacking of powers of the same name and wheather they can or not, does it say what "different" means. :(

Nope! Time to start house ruling! Generally people accept stacking in my experience (I'm pretty sure most people's seer councils rely on it so they can make even marines a 6+ save)

Powers don't stack because their is a CSM Nurgle power that says it can stack

Why would it have to specify it can stack if powers could stack normally?

No, they don't stack.

See the 500 previous threads on the subject. mostly titled enfeeble.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Powers don't stack because their is a CSM Nurgle power that says it can stack

Why would it have to specify it can stack if powers could stack normally?

Why do they have any of the reminders in the BRB?

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (BRB page 68)

Does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. That would be a completely different rule, and of course it does not exist.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Powers don't stack because their is a CSM Nurgle power that says it can stack

Why would it have to specify it can stack if powers could stack normally?

Why do they have any of the reminders in the BRB?

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (BRB page 68)

Does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. That would be a completely different rule, and of course it does not exist.

What does that have anything to do with what i said?

The CSM power gives its self permission to stack with its self. If you could stack multiples of the same power normally they wouldn't have put that permission in the CSM power. Ergo you can't normal stack the same power with its self.

Some do, some don't , some may or may not depending on your interpretation of vague wording. You have to say which power(s) you are trying to stack before I can give you a proper answer.

Waaaghpower wrote:

danny1995 wrote:
And to Waaaaghpower; Why no popcorn??? I'm hungry!!!

No popcorn until the show starts.

The show is about to start. I'm getting a drink. You guys want anything while I'm up?

To answer the OP, there are two sides to this:

A) They do not stack because, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." and "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."

B) They stack, because the first quote does not say "only different psychic powers are cumulative." and "I have permission to cast and resolve power A. I have permission to cast and resolve power A again. Why do you not let me resolve Power A?"

Now prepare for a back and forth of those two arguments.

By the gods! Not this again!?!?!

Still waiting

Given the first reactions I doubt it will flare up as badly as it usually does.

Let me start then:
Both Hammerhand and Jinx/Protect definitely stack as their effects are capable of being cumulative and they do not have the ambiguous "while this power is in effect" wording that other powers do.

Come on, let's do this.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Let me start then:
Both Hammerhand and Jinx/Protect definitely stack as their effects are capable of being cumulative and they do not have the ambiguous "while this power is in effect" wording that other powers do.

Come on, let's do this.

Protect/Jinx has the wording only Horrify doesn't. As pointed out this is a hotly debated subject.

Basically RaW there are arguments both ways on some powers (Horrify and Hammerhand for example) but most certainly don't. Also clear RaI is that they don't in general as some powers specifically call out that they stack with themselves which is strong evidence that normally they don't. Also the "reminder" on 3 separate occasions that different powers stack means that either the same powers don't stack or the GW design team are intentionally misleading the reader. This kind of partial reminder makes absolutely no sense yet the pro-stacking side will cling to thus being a reminder and firmly believe the design team are deliberately trying to trick us when writing the rules.

Ah, so it does, I must've read the cliff notes version instead of gf the full one.

Aren't we arguing RAW here, not RAI? Because if we're arguing RAI I say that being affected by a power is not intended to make you temporarily immune to to further instances of that power.

 Happyjew wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:

danny1995 wrote:
And to Waaaaghpower; Why no popcorn??? I'm hungry!!!

No popcorn until the show starts.

The show is about to start. I'm getting a drink. You guys want anything while I'm up?

To answer the OP, there are two sides to this:

A) They do not stack because, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." and "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."

B) They stack, because the first quote does not say "only different psychic powers are cumulative." and "I have permission to cast and resolve power A. I have permission to cast and resolve power A again. Why do you not let me resolve Power A?"

Now prepare for a back and forth of those two arguments.

More to the point

A) they do not stack because special rules do not stack. (long drawn out expiation with many rules cited)

B) they're not a special rule, their psychic powers. (opinion)

A) if it's not a special power then it can't modify the characteristics to begins with. (fact)

RAW, seems they stack to me.

RAI, probably not.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
RAW, seems they stack to me.

RAI, probably not.

RaW there is an argument for literally 1 or 2 powers stacking. Most of the relevant powers state "whilst the power is in effect the target unit... blah blah blah" thus if you cast the power once twice or a thousand times it is in effect and the unit receives the benefit once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Ah, so it does, I must've read the cliff notes version instead of gf the full one.

Aren't we arguing RAW here, not RAI? Because if we're arguing RAI I say that being affected by a power is not intended to make you temporarily immune to to further instances of that power.

So your RaI argument is that the GW design team intentionally try to mislead the reader. Really you believe that they are trying to confuse the reader? Why would they deliberately try to mislead the reader?

Crown - you're assuming that the rules never contain redundnant rules, or reminders. Given that they do, and proof had been given previously, your premise is proven false, and your conclusion now lacks support.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Crown - you're assuming that the rules never contain redundnant rules, or reminders. Given that they do, and proof had been given previously, your premise is proven false, and your conclusion now lacks support.

No he's assuming the rules don't contain intentionally misleading reminders which you've failed to disprove.

sirlynchmob wrote:
MB) they're not a special rule, their psychic powers. (opinion)

Not sure why it says (opinion) there.

Psychic powers are demonstrably not special rules.

 CrownAxe wrote:
If you could stack multiples of the same power normally they wouldn't have put that permission in the CSM power. Ergo you can't normal stack the same power with its self.

This is 100% false.

They have redundant reminders all over the place.

Such as P. 69 "Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle by using a Fire Point."

P. 78 "Note that the passengers can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself."

P. 93 "Note that all of the models in a unit firing from a building must target a single enemy unit, as normal."

Etc.

All redundant reminders...

If the passengers can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself normally why is that permission in the Transport/Fire Point rules as a reminder?

@Deathreaper - All of your examples start with "Note that" as in those sentances are specifically reminding you of the how the rules work in those situations. The CSM Nurgle power does not have such language.

Also, to be a redundancy the rules have to have said it before. But no where in the rules does it say Psychic Powers stack with themselves, ergo the CSM psychic power statement of allowing it to be stacked with its self can't be a redundancy

 DeathReaper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
MB) they're not a special rule, their psychic powers. (opinion)

Not sure why it says (opinion) there.

Psychic powers are demonstrably not special rules.

And pg 2 demonstrable says, special rules and war gear, psychic powers are not listed as modifiers. so stack away the modifiers do absolutely nothing.

This is 100% false. 

They have redundant reminders all over the place. 

Such as P. 69 "Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle by using a Fire Point." 

P. 78 "Note that the passengers can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself." 

Whilst redundant reminders they are not partial intentionally misleading reminders.

To be comparable they'd have to say something like this:

Such as P. 69 "Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle if the vehicle is open topped." 

Here the functional reminder implies that only open topped vehicles would allow firing of witch fires, rather than any other firepoint.

P. 78 "Note that the passengers embarked on a non-dedicated transport can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself." 

Whilst here they would have been implying the option wasn't open to dedicated transports. Please find an example like above where they remind you of a random subset of permission that would mislead you. Anywhere else in the rules?