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.

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...

Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?

Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...

Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself?

It does not need explicit permission as you already have permission to resolve the power according to the instructions in its entry. The entry says -1 Weapon skill, you apply a -1 weapon skill. If that power is cast again, you have to apply another -1 weapon skill as per multiple modifiers, since we have permission to resolve the psychic power, and then resolve that power cast from a different psyker on the target unit.

Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?

The part that says apply a -1, the rules of math, which the game uses, means that 4-1-1 =2

Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.

Different Maledictions are cumulative does not mean that the same Malediction is not cumulative.

The RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect" This power is referring to that particular casting of Terrify.

Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.

That is not what that says...

It says "Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics" (Models & Units section, Modifiers sub-section).

It does not say [Only certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics]

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules are a way that characteristics can be modified, but not exclusively.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...

Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?

Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.

Where does it say in the rules set that you need permission to perform every exact action that the rules already allow? I want a page number and paragraph here since you have been asking for that the entire thread.
Also, different was never defined by the rules as "Different type of malediction". It could easily mean "Different instances of Maledictions" or, more relevantly, it could mean "Multiple instances of the same malediction spell may stack". Assuming the former definition over the later is RAI and thus not within the scope of this discussion.

If you have proof that the former definition is true then I'll take my assertion back.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...

Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself?

Resolving powers gives you permission to stack maledictions.

The RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect" This power is referring to that particular casting of Terrify.

This is incorrect. "this Power" means Terrify. There is no mechanic for determining multiple castings of the same power. Therefore "whilst this power is in effect" means that malediction generally will not stack with itself.

"whilst this power is in effect" means the terrify that was just cast.

We look at terrify when it is cast and resolve it.

Ergo "whilst this power is in effect" is talking about that casting of Terrify.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...

Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?

Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.

Where does it say in the rules set that you need permission to perform every exact action that the rules already allow? I want a page number and paragraph here since you have been asking for that the entire thread.
Also, different was never defined by the rules as "Different type of malediction". It could easily mean "Different instances of Maledictions" or, more relevantly, it could mean "Multiple instances of the same malediction spell may stack". Assuming the former definition over the later is RAI and thus not within the scope of this discussion.

If you have proof that the former definition is true then I'll take my assertion back.

Permissive ruleset. Or show me the rule that says I can't smash your models up with a hammer.

Where does it even say that. Please provide in telecommunication written format, braille, and printed certified US Mail, along with a signed legal document asserting it's authenticity from the Design staff of Gamesworkshop.


It's evident that it's pretty unclear on what the hell they meant to happen with Maledictions. I say it stacks because that is how I am going to interpret it after reading on it and seeing the arguments and my understanding of the written english word.

Of course I read things differently, that's what I do in real life is write briefs etc.. etc..

 DeathReaper wrote:
"whilst this power is in effect" means the terrify that was just cast.

We look at terrify when it is cast and resolve it.

Ergo "whilst this power is in effect" is talking about that casting of Terrify.

So if I cast Terrify on a unit is the power in effect, yes or no?

If I cast Terrify on the unit again, is the power in effect, yes or no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:
Where does it even say that. Please provide in telecommunication written format, braille, and printed certified US Mail, along with a signed legal document asserting it's authenticity from the Design staff of Gamesworkshop.


It's evident that it's pretty unclear on what the hell they meant to happen with Maledictions. I say it stacks because that is how I am going to interpret it after reading on it and seeing the arguments and my understanding of the written english word.

Of course I read things differently, that's what I do in real life is write briefs etc.. etc..

It simply doesn't say anywhere in rules that I can't smash your models up with a hammer. So you believe I can?

The underlined pretty much sums up the side for pro-stacking. I interpret it that they don't stack because the rules never give them permission to stack and the wording in each psychic power that we are supposed to use to resolves them prevents them from stacking.

Though they either stack simply because nothing, other than the entry in each psychic power, says they don't.

Or if you believe it is a permissive ruleset then they don't stack because they have no permission to and each entry we qre supposed to resolve them by states that the modifiers only apply whilst the power is in effect which means casting it once or a thousand times is irrelevant the power is in effect...

 DeathReaper wrote:
"whilst this power is in effect" means the terrify that was just cast.

We look at terrify when it is cast and resolve it.

Ergo "whilst this power is in effect" is talking about that casting of Terrify.

Blessings and Maledictions have a duration. That entire duration is what "whilst this power is in effect" means.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Resolving a power's effects according to the instructions in its entry is what allows two -1's to stack...

Citation. Where in the permission to resolve does it say resolve it cumulatively with itself? Or where in Terrify's instructions does it say it is cumulative with itself?

Note the RaW that states that different Maledictions are cumulative. Also note the RaW that Terrify states "whilst this power is in effect". Unless you have rules to support the statement that Terrify stacks with itself, throwing around wild claims is not helpful to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also check the paragraph above the one you quoted. All modifiers are Special Rules or Wargear.

Where does it say in the rules set that you need permission to perform every exact action that the rules already allow? I want a page number and paragraph here since you have been asking for that the entire thread.
Also, different was never defined by the rules as "Different type of malediction". It could easily mean "Different instances of Maledictions" or, more relevantly, it could mean "Multiple instances of the same malediction spell may stack". Assuming the former definition over the later is RAI and thus not within the scope of this discussion.

If you have proof that the former definition is true then I'll take my assertion back.

Permissive ruleset. Or show me the rule that says I can't smash your models up with a hammer.

The point that has been made, and which you ignore, is that anything applying a modifier already has general permission to stack - its called "follows the rules of mathematics", which this game follows

4 - 1 - 1 = 2 because you are told hot to treat multiple modifiers, including more than one addition, subtraction, etc.

So permission to multiply resolve, i.e, "stack", modifiers has been found. now find a restriction. To use your example - I have general permission to smash your models. You are asking for a specific line allowing me to smash your models [with a hammer]. I have permission to apply modifiers according to the rules of mathematics; you are asking for specific permission to apply modifiers [from maledictions] according to the rules of mathematics. This is, of course, not how the rules actually work.

Note: parsing a sentence which does NOT include "only" as if it includes the word "Only" is an instant fail. Or, in other words, constantly referring to the line which talks about different maledictions as stacking AS IF it says "only" different maledictions - turning a functional reminder into a restriction - is a failed argument, and will mean you concede the entire point.

Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Which are essneitally the same as the last half dozen threads, where Fling et al resoundly ignored then.

No matter how much proof you can throw, it always come back to this word "stacking" acquiring mythical signifiance that requires, somehow, specific permission to use, even when general permission demonstrably exists.
Its like asking for specific permission to be able to deploy into a building entirely within your deployment zone, despite being told you can deploy anywhere. It isnt needed here, and it isnt needed for applying multiple modifiers from the same source

Do we have multiple modifiers? What are modifiers according to the rules?

So if I cast Terrify, is it in effect?

If I cast Terrify again on the same unit, is it in effect?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Do we have multiple modifiers? What are modifiers according to the rules?

So if I cast Terrify, is it in effect?

If I cast Terrify again on the same unit, is it in effect?

Terrify is a psychic power which bestows a rule modifying your characteristic.

You resolve it twice, so you have 2 modifiers, or MULTIPLE modifiers.

Find denial of the permission to resolve. Page and para, or concede again.

If the wording states "while this power is in effect" then any additional modifiers past the first are ignored.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Do we have multiple modifiers? What are modifiers according to the rules?

So if I cast Terrify, is it in effect?

If I cast Terrify again on the same unit, is it in effect?

Terrify is a psychic power which bestows a rule modifying your characteristic.

You resolve it twice, so you have 2 modifiers, or MULTIPLE modifiers.

Find denial of the permission to resolve. Page and para, or concede again.

Before asking me to concede perhaps read the rules in question. Do you know what a Modifier is? Read page 8.

Then read what Terrify does. It doesn't do what you seem to think it does.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Do we have multiple modifiers? What are modifiers according to the rules?

So if I cast Terrify, is it in effect?

If I cast Terrify again on the same unit, is it in effect?

Yes, you have two psychic powers named Terrify in effect.

Well we know what to do if we have Terrify in effect.

Yes, and we also know what to do when we have multiple modifiers in effect on a model.

 FlingitNow wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Do we have multiple modifiers? What are modifiers according to the rules?

So if I cast Terrify, is it in effect?

If I cast Terrify again on the same unit, is it in effect?

Terrify is a psychic power which bestows a rule modifying your characteristic.

You resolve it twice, so you have 2 modifiers, or MULTIPLE modifiers.

Find denial of the permission to resolve. Page and para, or concede again.

Before asking me to concede perhaps read the rules in question. Do you know what a Modifier is? Read page 8.

Then read what Terrify does. It doesn't do what you seem to think it does.

You know I am perfectly well aware of whaty a modifier is, having "debated" you on this topic more than once. The passive aggressive insults from you are not helpful.

Not in 7th Ed. What does Terrify say? Is there a trigger for its effects beyond simply being manifested? For instance does the power require the power to be in effect to generate a number of effects on the target?

What do modifiers say they are?

How about answering those questions? Theyve already been given this thread....

Again, answer PRs detailed post, exactly. Show where permission is denied. If not, concede that your "special" permission to stack modifiers is given in multiple modifiers

This is no tapping nothing different to where these threads have been before at this stage.

I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.

Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.

You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.

 Nem wrote:
This is no tapping nothing different to where these threads have been before at this stage.

Well there is the new rule that Blessings are now non-cumulative, which I hoped would quell the anti-stacking side, as most of their arguments were about how psychic powers were intended to be non-cumulative or how broken certain Blessings are when applied cumulatively. Clearly, I should not have trusted to hope, for it has forsaken this sub-forum.

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.

I would agree if you hand indeed actually shown anything of the sort.

Zodiark wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.

Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.

You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.

This sums up both arguments perfectly. If you believe that the rules are a permissive ruleset then you can't stack Maledictions. However if like the pro-stacking side you do not believe the rules are a permissive ruleset then nothing says you can't stack.

Also nothing says I can't add new units to the table at any point in the game. Or choose to take an extra shooting phase in the middle of your turn.

So which do you believe? Maledictions don't stack or I can just remove all your models from the table and declare myself winner at any point? After all the rules say I can't voluntarily move my models off the table therefore I can move yours right?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
I don't need to show denial of permission when I have proven that "resolving the power according to it's entry" prevents Terrify from stacking. Whilst also having illustrated you have no permission to stack.

Your entire argument is based on whether or not you have the permission to do something. As has been mentioned half a dozen times, if you are not told to do something, what is stopping you from doing it? Nothing, just house rules, nothing official exists anywhere within the texts prohibiting you from stacking. In fact, others have numerous times cited the rules for multiple modifiers and multiple instances of Terrify counts as multiple modifiers which the rules specifically addresses.

You haven't "proven" anything, all you have done is latch on to a last bastion of hope.

This sums up both arguments perfectly. If you believe that the rules are a permissive ruleset then you can't stack Maledictions. However if like the pro-stacking side you do not believe the rules are a permissive ruleset then nothing says you can't stack.

Also nothing says I can't add new units to the table at any point in the game. Or choose to take an extra shooting phase in the middle of your turn.

So which do you believe? Maledictions don't stack or I can just remove all your models from the table and declare myself winner at any point? After all the rules say I can't voluntarily move my models off the table therefore I can move yours right?

1. This game isn't a permissive ruleset, that is a collective mindset of the players, not the rules as written in the BRB.
2. Illogical scenarios do not help your argument.
3. Until GW recognizes this mythical "permissive" ruleset, it does not exist and therefore, according to your own argument, they do stack.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.

"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"

I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?

It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'

If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Flingitnow: If you go back a few pages I have made a detailed post about the permissions involved in each step of the psychic phase, my argument for stacking is very much not "it doesn't say I can't", it's more "here are all the rules I'm following that allow me to stack the power, and you can't find a rule that says I can't".

Well let's test your application of the rules on a WAAAGH banner.

"A mob including a WAAAgh banner has +1 WS"

I have 2 banners, I know have a combination of rules Banner 1 and banner 2, ergo my mobs WS is now 6. 4+1+1=6 right?

It's the exact same argument as for maledictions stacking, I can have more than 1 banner, and a 'mob including' is no different grammatically than 'whilst this power is in effect'

If the pro stacking side doesn't accept this logic for banners, then they know they are wrong about maledictions. Otherwise, why does one stack and not the other.

Does the banners state that you cannot have more than one anywhere in the codex? If it does not then you can.