Enfeeble and Rad Grenades???

[chicop76]

Well as the title says. Let's say I enfeeble a unit down to 1, which is the limit for maladictions. Than I use a rd grenade effect which will brng the model to 0 toughness. Will it remove the model as a casualty.

For the most part most armies can have 2 psykers that can dish out two enfeebles which at best they can kill guard type models.

However Tyranids and Daemons can dish out a lot of enfeeble powers. Tyranids can dish out 17 enfeebles due to 2 tyrants, 6 broodlords, and 9 zonathorpes. While Daemons can only dish out 8 at one time. 5 hq's and 3 princes. Well lord of change, 4 nurgle heralds, and 3 nurgle princes.

However Tyranids can't ally with any rad holders, but they have enough chances to possibly make a wraithknight toughness 1 and instant kill it with a spine gaunt.

The only rad type holders daemons can align with is Tau. I have to see if Darkstrider is limited to no lower to one. If not if Darkstrider fires into let's say Nurgle Marines that's lowered to 1 they would drop to toughness 0 and be removed as casualties. The great part it can be a 50 man blob squad and the whole unit would be picked up.

[jifel]

Well, You could do this with two allied libbys and do this to a T3 unit. Otherwise not likely. Not to mention, there is quite the debate on if it even stacks.

[Magpie]

Oh how I would love to be able to pull this off.

"Ok this OX Inq is going to charge that IG Blob of 50"
"OK"
"Oh they are all dead by the way"
"WTF ????????????????"

The only question is what happens first, Rads or Overwatch.

[Allen Broussard]

overwatch. since overwatch happens the instant you declare the charge, whereas the grenades only affect models who are in assault.

[chicop76]

Well, You could do this with two allied libbys and do this to a T3 unit. Otherwise not likely. Not to mention, there is quite the debate on if it even stacks.

Maladictions stack, so what's the debate. It says so under maladiction distription around page 69.

You ca debate if rad stacks on mal which I can easily see since mal is begining of movement and the rad effects is either in shooting or assault.

Also you are over loking darkangels who have rad effects doing the shooting phase.

However two enfeebles, rad, hammerhand, and the other +1 power is really potent. Say you have a prince that is t6. You can lower to 3 and raise strength to 6. You will be wounding on 2s and causing instant death. Why bother activating the force weapon. Against a wraithknight you could choose to wound on 3s and still pull of the force weapon effect.

[Magpie]

overwatch. since overwatch happens the instant you declare the charge, whereas the grenades only affect models who are in assault.

The rule actually says "during a turn in which a unit launches an assault". So That would indicate that it is at the very moment you declare the charge.

[jifel]

Maladictions stack, so what's the debate. It says so under maladiction distription around page 69.

You ca debate if rad stacks on mal which I can easily see since mal is begining of movement and the rad effects is either in shooting or assault.

Also you are over loking darkangels who have rad effects doing the shooting phase.

However two enfeebles, rad, hammerhand, and the other +1 power is really potent. Say you have a prince that is t6. You can lower to 3 and raise strength to 6. You will be wounding on 2s and causing instant death. Why bother activating the force weapon. Against a wraithknight you could choose to wound on 3s and still pull of the force weapon effect.

I agree that maledictions stack, but head over to Dakka and you'll find that half of players don't quite agree.

[chicop76]

Sam
I agree that maledictions stack, but head over to Dakka and you'll find that half of players don't quite agree.

Had the same problem with Tau Online. Peoply only read half a rule or don't bother to go to the section that clarifies a rulr further. Instand Death is an example with people think double strength do not cause instant death.

I found the index and looking all the index pages really help.

A popular miss read rul is turn, player's turn, and game turn. A turn is a player's turn unless game turn is stated.

[Magpie]

I agree that maledictions stack, but head over to Dakka and you'll find that half of players don't quite agree.

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative,"

The devil is in the detail. Is "different" a different caster or a different power all together that stacks?

[daboarder]

given that the sentence is discussing maledictions themselves, not who or when they are cast, its a different malediction.

[chicop76]

Pg 68 brb

"Malediction: ... at the start of the Psyker's Movement phase... last until the following turn... Note that bonuses and penalties from differant maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1"

Example:

Nurgle Herald cast enfeeble on unit x. If for some reaon it can cast enfeeble again it won't stack. At best on model casting enfeeble a malediction once is -1 s and -t

A differant model casting a malediction.

Nurgle Prince cast enfeeble on same unit x as herald. Differant caster and not the same malediction as before. Therefore it will stack which means -2 S and -2 t.

Not like mentioning that you can't lower under 1 and raise above 10 is not a clue on the intent. Although some maedictions can lower the same stat like eldar battle powers and enfeeble.

[daboarder]

thats the same malediction though from a different source.

[chicop76]

thats the same malediction though from a different source.

How so.

If you have a Mac Royal with cheese on your table and I have a Mac Royal with chees on my table, and I eat all of my burger I just magically ate your burger as well.

It's the same power, but not the same exact malediction. Eldar had the effect of casting the same power twice which would be casting the same Maladiction twice. The reason they use differant is so the same power wasn't used twice with that effects stacking.

Saying it's the same exact malediction is like me saying I ate your burger, by eating the one in front of me.

[daboarder]

what is the malediciton you cast?

it is enfeeble.

[SacredChao]

How so.

If you have a Mac Royal with cheese on your table and I have a Mac Royal with chees on my table, and I eat all of my burger I just magically ate your burger as well.

It's the same power, but not the same exact malediction. Eldar had the effect of casting the same power twice which would be casting the same Maladiction twice. The reason they use differant is so the same power wasn't used twice with that effects stacking.

Saying it's the same exact malediction is like me saying I ate your burger, by eating the one in front of me.

But you each have a Mac Royal with cheese. Regardless of how many, or their location, or who's eating them, they are still the same burger.

edit: what I'm trying to get across is that without any additional clarification from GW, "same malediction" is most likely meant at the very least similarity, in other words the name itself. It never mention here that the caster/power name/whatever must ALL be the same for the spell to be considered "same".

Granted, the question can still come up with some armies without worrying about the repetition of Enfeeble. A Nurgle sorcerer gets enfeeble and the nurgle power that has a 33% chance of reducing toughness by one. You ally Darkstrider in from Tau, POOF! T3 dudes have a 0 toughness during the shooting phase.

[DWest]

To strain our analogy, it reads to me like I take my Royale with Cheese and put Ketchup of Enfeeblement all over it. It now has -1T(astiness, because it's now basically ketchup soup with a burger in it). I then put another helping of Ketchup of Enfeeblement on it, and it's still at -1T, because the taste hasn't specifically changed.

Now the question is, are individual Maledictions/Blessings "flavors" that can only be applied once? I believe the answer is "yes", because many of the psychic powers grant either re-rolls; a set saving throw; or a rule from the Special Rules section. None of these effects stack (you can't re-roll a re-roll, and becoming an Eternal Eternal Warrior doesn't do anything different), so in my mind, the precedent leans towards the numerical effects such as Enfeeble not stacking either.

[Magpie]

Same is same for goodness sake, or mores teh point different is different.
Enfeeble is the same as Enfeeble but not the same as "Warp Weaken" which might be another power from another race that does exactly the same thing.

I can't even being to guess what hamburgers have to do with anything.

[Urtyfang]

The different caster means it's a different power doesn't fly with me.

pg 418 of the BRB or under psychic disciplines, It clearly states "different psychers can have the same powers"
And from there we can see that different psychers will cast the same power.

For this reason I don't think enfeeble should stack with enfeeble.

[Tynskel]

GW is pretty clear about this: same abilities do not stack. It is different abilities that stack.

Example: You gain Shrouding with a stealth field. You gain Shrouding because of night fight. You do not automatically have a 3+ cover save, you have a 5+ cover save, because you cannot benefit from Shrouding twice. However, now someone has Black Sun Filter: you still have 5+ cover save. Why? Because you still have the Shrouding from the Stealth Field, even though you lost Shrouding from Night Fight.

[Nabterayl]

I concur. Enfeeble is the same as Enfeeble regardless of where it comes from.

[Daemonette666]

I agree with that, how ever if you had Maledictions that were named differently, they could stack up until the model was down to a toughness of 1, but no lower. The you could throw either rad grenades (GK codex), or use radshells (DA codex) to bring the model/unit to a toughness of 0 or less until the end of the turn, thus killing it. The amount of maledictions, and other psychic attacks that a unit could get against it, that reduce the toughness is fairly limited, so the situation would not come up very often.

[Magpie]

so the situation would not come up very often.

I agree, there is more likelihood of an IG Pryker Squad reducing a units Ld to 6 so the Callidus neural shredder can wipe them out and THAT is very unlikely.

[DarkLink]

I agree with that, how ever if you had Maledictions that were named differently, they could stack up until the model was down to a toughness of 1, but no lower. The you could throw either rad grenades (GK codex), or use radshells (DA codex) to bring the model/unit to a toughness of 0 or less until the end of the turn, thus killing it. The amount of maledictions, and other psychic attacks that a unit could get against it, that reduce the toughness is fairly limited, so the situation would not come up very often.

You can't throw the GK rad grenades. They don't have a str value, and they only trigger their -1 effect if someone charges.

[Anggul]

Yeah, Maledictions have to be different Maledictions to stack their effects. I imagine the most common example of this would be Enfeeble and that Nurgle power that does the same sort of thing but randomised on D3. You can't ally Chaos with Dark Angels though, so you won't get to stack that with Rad Grenades, but I just thought I would make the point.

If it were talking about multiple castings of the same Malediction it would probably say so.

[chicop76]

Yeah, Maledictions have to be different Maledictions to stack their effects. I imagine the most common example of this would be Enfeeble and that Nurgle power that does the same sort of thing but randomised on D3. You can't ally Chaos with Dark Angels though, so you won't get to stack that with Rad Grenades, but I just thought I would make the point.

If it were talking about multiple castings of the same Malediction it would probably say so.

I meant rad grenade effects.

1. Rad grenades from Grey Knights
2. Rad for Hq or Elite bikes who take for shooting with Dark Angels.
3. Tau Character Darkstrider

Ironically none of the armies mention can have enfeeble or a -1 toughness maladiction, which means they have to ally with an army to do so.

Which leaves Daemons, CSM, Blood Angels, Space Marines , and guard

Honestly Daemons have almost a gaurenteed chance t get the power follwed by CSM.

Space Marines have a decent chance as well and Blood Angels.

I have to look at blood angels and see if a furioso Libby can do it or not.

[Lord Krungharr]

Maladictions stack, so what's the debate. It says so under maladiction distription around page 69.

You ca debate if rad stacks on mal which I can easily see since mal is begining of movement and the rad effects is either in shooting or assault.

Also you are over loking darkangels who have rad effects doing the shooting phase.

However two enfeebles, rad, hammerhand, and the other +1 power is really potent. Say you have a prince that is t6. You can lower to 3 and raise strength to 6. You will be wounding on 2s and causing instant death. Why bother activating the force weapon. Against a wraithknight you could choose to wound on 3s and still pull of the force weapon effect.

Maledictions of the same type DO NOT stack. Only different Maledictions that cause the same effects will produce cumulative results. Just because different psykers cast the same power doesn't make the powers different. In the Malediction rule, the word 'different' is describing the Maledictions, not the psykers. But rad grenades and other Toughness reducing effects would stack on an Enfeebled unit.

[DarkLink]

But does it mean different individual maledictions, or different types of maledictions? It doesn't specify. The wording is ambiguous, and can be taken either way.

[chicop76]

But does it mean different individual maledictions, or different types of maledictions? It doesn't specify. The wording is ambiguous, and can be taken either way.

Rightt. Which is why I use the hamburger example. It just says differant maladictions. It doesn't specify if it's a differant power or simply a differant maladiction than the maladiction you just used.

Armies like eldar used to be able to use the same power twice. The differant is still vague. However I really don't feel like really arguing the point and will simply die off in every game till proven other wise.

[Magpie]

The rule talks about the same power so enfeeble + enfeeble won't work, they are not "different"

If it was "cast by different psyker" it would say so, as it does for the GK Power" Psychic Communion"

[chicop76]

Differant is stil vague. It doesn't say differant as in differant type of power, like enfeeble and a differant maladiction, or differant as in differant power from a. Differant source. Can't ue the same enfeeble twice, but another cater with enfeeble steps in and cast it.

I still see it as how I see it in the beginning.

[Magpie]

It says "different maledictions" can't get any clearer than that.

[chicop76]

It says "different maledictions" can't get any clearer than that.

Differant than the one that was cast or differant as in type that was cast or different source.

Enfeeble from a differant source is a differenat malediction.

I have a penny here and I have a different penny in the right corner. My issue is differant can mean not using the same penny here twice to stack or you can stack a penny here with a different peny in the right corner for 2 cents.

[Nabterayl]

If it meant "different as in not cast by the same model" then the rule would be of no effect. Page 67 is clear that no individual model can cast the same power more than once ("a psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn"), so the only way "different maledictions" makes sense is if it's taken to mean two different models casting the same power.

[chicop76]

If it meant "different as in not cast by the same model" then the rule would be of no effect. Page 67 is clear that no individual model can cast the same power more than once ("a psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn"), so the only way "different maledictions" makes sense is if it's taken to mean two different models casting the same power.

At the time Eldar can cast the same power twice. Now you can't do so for about a month. However you have to write it as such when you consider Eldar can possibly cast enfeeble twice thanks to war gear, or any other possible efect that can cause you to cast the same power twice.

Yes I have read that quote, and aware what it says.

[Magpie]

Differant than the one that was cast or differant as in type that was cast or different source.

Enfeeble from a differant source is a differenat malediction.

I have a penny here and I have a different penny in the right corner. My issue is differant can mean not using the same penny here twice to stack or you can stack a penny here with a different peny in the right corner for 2 cents.

You really don't say "different penny" tho' do you? "Another penny" would be more usual.
"What is the coin in the corner?" "Same as this one, a penny"
The coins can be thought of as being different in some respects but not in others.
Are they different pennies? Yes (this penny and that penny)
Are they different coins? No, they are both pennies.
Colloquial speech is not must of a help with the GW rules

A different psyker casting the same power is a different manifestation of the same power so it isn't in any way a different power.

"from different maledictions" , means it is the malediction itself that must be different.

[chicop76]

It's like saying I have a rock in my hand and you have a rock in your hand. We both have diffrant rocks, but they both the same as in discription and in shape.

if I take my rock and throw it at you. Did I hit you with the rock in your hand? If I pick up my rock I threw at you did I pick up the rock in your hand. The answer is no because it can be the same type of rock in look and apperance, but it's not the same and the rocks are still two differant rocks. One in your hand and one in my hand.

If I say you can hit me with a differant silver rock. You can still hit me with the rock in your hand, because it is still not the same one in my hand.

[Magpie]

Are they different projectiles? No they are both rocks.
Are they different rocks? Yes

Are the different maledictions? No they are both "Enfeeble"
Are they different "Enfeebles"? Yes.

They need to be different on the first level not the second.

[chicop76]

Are they different projectiles? No they are both rocks.
Are they different rocks? Yes

Are the different maledictions? No they are both "Enfeeble"
Are they different "Enfeebles"? Yes.

They need to be different on the first level not the second.

Let's put it this way. Let's say rock A is named Enfeeble and rock B is named Enfeeble. instead of rock we can switch out for maladiction. If I hit you with rock A did I also hit you with Rock B. No because they are differnat Maladictions/Rocks.

[Magpie]

Let's put it this way.

Let's not because they are different enfeebles not different maledictions.

[chicop76]

Let's not because they are different enfeebles not different maledictions.

Ummm yes. Only way if the maladiction is the same it would be the same rock in my hand. If you throw in rock B which is also enfeeble it will be a different maladiction even though they both are enfeeble.

[Magpie]

Ummm yes. Only way if the maladiction is the same it would be the same rock in my hand. If you throw in rock B which is also enfeeble it will be a different maladiction even though they both are enfeeble.

ummmmmm no.

What you are suggesting would allow a psyker to cast the same power twice as you are saying different manifestation is a different power.

That is not the case.

[chicop76]

ummmmmm no.

What you are suggesting would allow a psyker to cast the same power twice as you are saying different manifestation is a different power.

That is not the case.

If you sayy soooooooooo.

Remember Eldar had a piece of gear that allowed them t use the same power twice.

[Magpie]

If you sayy soooooooooo.

"A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn"

If , as you are suggesting, a different casting = different malediction then you CAN cast a particular malediction twice because it is different, ergo not the same.


Remember Eldar had a piece of gear that allowed them t use the same power twice.

Which has nothing to do with anything.

[chicop76]

Which has nothing to do with anything.

It is an example of a Farseer dueto last edition rules being able to cast enfeeble twice. Potentially on the same target.

[Magpie]

It is an example of a Farseer dueto last edition rules being able to cast enfeeble twice. Potentially on the same target.

Which does not apply to a 6th Edition requirement dealing with a 6th edition concept

[chicop76]

Which does not apply to a 6th Edition requirement dealing with a 6th edition concept

Yes it does since it was in 6th edition for about a year. You still have to write rules in conjunction with older codexes as well. With Eldar you never know they was gonna keep the gear or lose it. I can see this argument with dark angels, CSM, or even maybe Daemons, but the Eldar codex wasn't updated in a bout a year since 6th been out. It's fair to say that they wrote the rule in mind since Eldar could cast the same power twice.

[Magpie]

Are you talking about Spirit Stones?

Because if you are the rule for them says they can cast two powers but specifically prohibits casting the same power twice.

[chicop76]

Unles you are Eldrad.

[Magpie]

You mean Eldrad's Staff ? Yes he could cast the same power twice as a specific exception.
But it still has no relevance on the question at hand, mainly as the ability is now gone.
The 6th Ed rules were not written with a 4th Ed Codex in mind.

I don't see how that supports in anyway your suggestion that different manifestation = Different Malediction.

[chicop76]

You mean Eldrad's Staff ? Yes he could cast the same power twice as a specific exception.
But it still has no relevance on the question at hand, mainly as the ability is now gone.
The 6th Ed rules were not written with a 4th Ed Codex in mind.

I don't see how that supports in anyway your suggestion that different manifestation = Different Malediction.

Hmmmm. Let's seee when was 6th written. About a year ago. What is more feasable they written the rule with Eldrad in mind and any other ability that can possibly do the same thing, or they went nah let's completely ignore that even though we are not sure if we are going to nerf the power or not.

It's like conjuration. Do you see anything that has conjuration or it was simply written when they eventually decide to use it.

Vector Dancer was the same thing until Eldar a year later came out.

The book still contains a few rule sets which are not viable yet, due to 1/3 of the books have been converted to 6th.

You still have to write with the previous codexes in mind. Since some of the older codexes do x which they write a rule to cover that.

[Magpie]

The 6th edition rules were not written with 4th ed codices, or 5th for that matter, in mind. Codecies are written for the rules set not vica versa. The preamble in the Updates says as much.

The likelihood that a new rule set contained legacy rules to account for a soon to be superseded Codex is Zero at its most optimistic.

I guarantee you that the basic framework of each of the new Codices was written prior to the 6th Rulebook hitting the shelves. Evidenced by the later 5th Ed books containing many 6th Ed concepts. Ever noticed the Grey Knight Codex (came out in 2011) HQs' unit type is Infantry (Character)? Definitely a 6th Ed thing.

I also guarantee you that 6th Ed rulebook was not written a year ago, more like 2 to 3 years ago, probably more if you go off when they first put pen to paper.

All of which is beside the point as it provides no insight to the question at hand.

[chicop76]

The 6th edition rules were not written with 4th ed codices, or 5th for that matter, in mind. Codecies are written for the rules set not vica versa. The preamble in the Updates says as much.

The likelihood that a new rule set contained legacy rules to account for a soon to be superseded Codex is Zero at its most optimistic.

I guarantee you that the basic framework of each of the new Codices was written prior to the 6th Rulebook hitting the shelves. Evidenced by the later 5th Ed books containing many 6th Ed concepts. Ever noticed the Grey Knight Codex (came out in 2011) HQs' unit type is Infantry (Character)? Definitely a 6th Ed thing.

I also guarantee you that 6th Ed rulebook was not written a year ago, more like 2 to 3 years ago, probably more if you go off when they first put pen to paper.

All of which is beside that point as it provides no insight to the question at hand.

Which means they kept possibilities like Eldrad in mind or the possibilty of having the ability to use two powers

Anyway Necrons was written for 6th and Grey knights was able to take advantage of the writting for 6th as well. It still doesn't make the 6th codexes.

You can say the same for Eldar, and both Chaos books when they was writting for 5th.

You can still see rules that apply more to armies that hasn't been updated like referance to guard platoon squads which is not in 6th. You have examples and rules that are clearly with 5th edition codexes in mind. What if they dissolve guard platoons in 6th what do you do now.

Yes when they wrote 6th edition most of the writing was for 6th edition material in mind. Also they have to write with material that is already out there in mind as well. Like Eldrad they wrote for till Eldar 6th Edition fix and alligned the book to 6th edition needs.

Let's not go into Daemons which is a completly different army. That army violated some 6th rules, reason why they was quicly made a book and not really worried about the book since they knew what they had in mind with the material. Tau and eldar is pushing it, and any future books it's doubtful was written or being written when 6th finally came out.

[Magpie]

Just to recap


All of which is beside the point as it provides no insight to the question at hand.

[chicop76]

Just to recap

It covers what rules and effects they had in mind. They wrote to cover all the basics in case yu can cast the same power twice.

[Magpie]

Which no one can now do and does not in any way support the notion that Different Manifestation = Different Malediction.

[chicop76]

Which no one can now do and does not in any way support the notion that Different Manifestation = Different Malediction.

Now so far. Ironically you couldn't say that a month a go, so for about a year that was just the case.

[Magpie]

Even if another unit arises that can use the same power twice you're not any closer to showing that Different Manifestation = Different Malediction.

And I am meaning by using something from the rule book, not the garden or piggy bank.