Stacking abilities rules

[Dorash182]

Hello, I'm trying to find an answer as to whether or not some rules stack, and in either case where the rules justification for the answer lies. 

 

Example 1: if a zombie model is wounded, and within range of 2 different Wight King Infernal Standards, does he get two separate 6+ saves or only one?

 

Example 2: Two Screaming catapults attacking one target. Do they suffer -4 bravery or only -2?

[Arkiham]

Stacking depends on the wording.

"Models within range of this model gain blah blah "

"Models within range of A blah blah model have blah blah"

When this unit is within range of a ....

this defines if it stacks or not.

[Dorash182]

Hi, this didn't really clarify anything for me. Either its unclear, or I'm silly. But I come away from reading your reply even more unsure of the ruling. How about the specific examples i used? How would they be resolved? Those might help me to understand

[Lucio]

The examples don't clarify it, my approach is that the rule of one applies, the same bonus, from the same source, only applies the once to any given unit.

So, you can gain +1A from as many different sources as you want, but a single unit can only be  bolstered by a single Bloodsecrator, even if there's 2 on the field in range.

Honestly not sure how the rules are worded per se, but playing it differently leads to obscene unit power-ups

[rokapoke]

Both of your examples use "a" or "an" in the warscroll, so they don't stack. It's like getting a bonus if you've been to a school -- it doesn't matter how many you've attended, it's a yes/no question. 

[RuneBrush]

To answer the original question first:

The key part is "within 9" of an infernal standard".  This is saying that a model may only receive one save

Q: Is my slain model within 9" of an infernal standard
A: Yes

Doesn't make any odds if it's one standard or twenty, the answer is still yes.

 

The same applies to the Bloodreaver's Frenzied Devotion.  They gain +1 Attack if the unit is within 12" of a Totem - the number of totems is irrelevant, they only gain +1 attack because the ability states "within 12" of a model with Chaos Totem".

Bloodsecrators buff's do stack.  Two planted Bloodsecrators would apply a Rage of Khorne ability each to units within 18".  If it were meant to be singular the ability would be worded differently.

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, Lucio said:

The examples don't clarify it, my approach is that the rule of one applies, the same bonus, from the same source, only applies the once to any given unit.

So, you can gain +1A from as many different sources as you want, but a single unit can only be  bolstered by a single Bloodsecrator, even if there's 2 on the field in range.

Honestly not sure how the rules are worded per se, but playing it differently leads to obscene unit power-ups

adding house rules arent relevant to the Op's question. 

[Dorash182]

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

To answer the original question first:

The key part is "within 9" of an infernal standard".  This is saying that a model may only receive one save

Q: Is my slain model within 9" of an infernal standard
A: Yes

Doesn't make any odds if it's one standard or twenty, the answer is still yes.

 

The same applies to the Bloodreaver's Frenzied Devotion.  They gain +1 Attack if the unit is within 12" of a Totem - the number of totems is irrelevant, they only gain +1 attack because the ability states "within 12" of a model with Chaos Totem".

Bloodsecrators buff's do stack.  Two planted Bloodsecrators would apply a Rage of Khorne ability each to units within 18".  If it were meant to be singular the ability would be worded differently.

While I appreciate your in depth reponse, and I can see the logic of your thinking, one thing struck me when using your Q and A example. 

The problem arises around the word "an", which could mean both that one is the same as a dozen, or that each infernal standards qualified it for another use of the rule. Without a proper ruling (in an FAQ or something- like I was hoping had existed and I had overlooked) it is an entirely arbitrary line you've drawn to assume that it should be read one way and not the other. It could as likely be:

Q: Is my slain model within 9" of an Infernal Banner?

A: Yes, two of them.

There is no reason in the wording of the warscroll rule as to why this is not equally valid. I was really hoping some definite answer would be shown to me in the main rules or FAQs in the form of something I had overlooked. To  the contrary though, the FAQs do support multiple uses of the same spells and abilities, though using offensive stuff as an example rather than save-type abilities. 

 

Edit- On re-reading your post, I must point out that "This is saying that a model may only receive one save" is pure conjecture, as I've read nothing to support this statement through all of the rules and FAQs. You're making a normative claim which is fine, but not helpful when arguing against someone who only responds to substantive claims.

 

Edit 2- To summarise the issue better, after re-reading reading your Q and A example again, I've realised that you are actually correct that that is how it should be framed, however your error is to assume that the Q and A should only be peformed once, when "an" doesn't indicate this. If it had said "ANY" or "At least one" rather than "an", it would be clear that it should be read as you've stated. Even better if it outright stated in the warscroll "this benefit can only be used once per model". 

If it had a general rule in the main rules stating that these types of abilities could only be used a single time then it would also be clearer, though not water tight.... Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant.

[Arkiham]

basically. some rules do stack and some dont,

bloodsecrator stacks, aspiring deathbringer stacks, harbinger of decays 5+ save stacks, +1 to hit from the hurricanum stacks, the bloodstoker whip stacks

the extra attack from being within range of a totem for bloodreavers doesnt stack, i cant really think of any more off the top of my head which dont stack, i think its less common.

it depends on how the text is worded. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Rules as written.

It's a single logical test.

You're over thinking it quite a bit, as well as attributing intent to the rules of one that's not really indicated anywhere.

[Dorash182]

17 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Rules as written.

It's a single logical test.

You're over thinking it quite a bit, as well as attributing intent to the rules of one that's not really indicated anywhere.

I understand that its easy to answer with "Rules as written", but it comes off a tad glib when the reasons for why it can be interpreted both ways has been spelt out for you to read. 

Using your logic, a player can insist on two, three or more 6 infernal standard save rolls and then smugly claim "Rules as written". 

Do you see how your response was unhelpful?

Edit- Case in point: from your response, I honestly can't tell whether you're of the view it should allow multiple save rolls from multiple infernal standards or of the view it should only allow a single roll for all. 

[BaldoBeardo]

You may think it glib. For which I apologise.

But you're casting around for different interpretations as to what is actually very clear English.

Semantically, you cannot argue that the infernal standard is intended for multiple use if you read it carefully with complete clarity.

There comes a point where no further discussion is possible. It can't be stated any plainer than that.

See also, "Sun Tzu and the lesson of the concubines".

 

[Dorash182]

39 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

You may think it glib. For which I apologise.

But you're casting around for different interpretations as to what is actually very clear English.

Semantically, you cannot argue that the infernal standard is intended for multiple use if you read it carefully with complete clarity.

There comes a point where no further discussion is possible. It can't be stated any plainer than that.

See also, "Sun Tzu and the lesson of the concubines".

 

Firstly, I was never canvassing interpretations so much as asking where in the rules or FAQs there exists a substantive reason to interpret stacking/cumulative rules in either direction. With respect, I think that perhaps you've decided upon what I am looking for rather than reading what I am actually asking. I stated in both the OP and in a reply that I am looking for rules justifications that substantively deal with rules situations like this. 

 

Secondly, yes, there does come a point where no further discussion is possible and something can't be stated plainer. Thats my point. I even illustrated several ways in which this could be made clearer and how to avoid any confusion.

Thirdly, you're seemingly attributing my vote on this particular rule to the view that you can do multiple rolls. This isn't the case, I'm of neither opinion. 

Finally your Sun Tzu reference, cute but really missing the whole point of what I'm saying. I'd even say its totally out of place, seeing as though I have demonstrated in writing how the warscroll is unclear. I apologise for my facetiousness in advance, however its almost as if you're shoehorning some irrelevant old Tzu to lend yourself some whiff of intellectual credibility because you didn't enjoy me calling you out on how silly it is to just repeat "Rules as written" when the wheels have fallen off that wagon. 

[fartsocks]

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

See also, "Sun Tzu and the lesson of the concubines".

 

I have no idea how this relates to the topic, but Sun Tzu was a bit of a ****** in that story.

[BaldoBeardo]

I had to resort to shoehorning simply because explaining why you're wrong in any simpler terms would have required crayons and a kindergarten class.

Being deliberately contrary doesn't make you smart or insightful. The rules are very clear if you read them properly.

But you'll just dismiss this as "not adding anything new".

[avanp]

I played a game yesterday where a player had Teclis and two phoenixes. With another hero, they would cast 4 spells, which according to the phoenix ability gives them +1 to their save. How many times can this apply? I was being told that at one point the phoenix had a 2+ save ignoring the first 2 rend, because 1's auto fail. This seems ridiculous to me.

[BaldoBeardo]

1 minute ago, avanp said:

I played a game yesterday where a player had Teclis and two phoenixes. With another hero, they would cast 4 spells, which according to the phoenix ability gives them +1 to their save. How many times can this apply? I was being told that at one point the phoenix had a 2+ save ignoring the first 2 rend, because 1's auto fail. This seems ridiculous to me.

It may seem ridiculous, but that's the rules and has been backed up by the FAQ. If you wish to play differently, that's down to you and your opponents.

[Arkiham]

6 minutes ago, avanp said:

I played a game yesterday where a player had Teclis and two phoenixes. With another hero, they would cast 4 spells, which according to the phoenix ability gives them +1 to their save. How many times can this apply? I was being told that at one point the phoenix had a 2+ save ignoring the first 2 rend, because 1's auto fail. This seems ridiculous to me.

thats alot of points he devoting to do that, an mortal wounds still hurt. so it seems fair 

[avanp]

He isn't really devoting lots of points to do that, he's just casting his spells as he normally does with heroes, and the Phoenix happens to get better. I'm not sure if the Phoenix is very good at all, but I did safely ignore it for the game and target the wizards. 
 

I'm well aware that I can play the game how I want. It is after all a game. I was contributing my experience to the discussion on stacking abilities. I'm also well aware that that is what the rules say, but it does feel rather silly. Perhaps this was intentional, perhaps it was a mistake. Sometimes even the almighty GW makes allows things to slip through the cracks.

[Arkiham]

It's definitely allowed, they're definitely aware and they actively encourage it 

[Dorash182]

3 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I had to resort to shoehorning simply because explaining why you're wrong in any simpler terms would have required crayons and a kindergarten class.

Being deliberately contrary doesn't make you smart or insightful. The rules are very clear if you read them properly.

But you'll just dismiss this as "not adding anything new".

Your petulant, bratty behaviour arising from being shown why you are wrong is really unbecoming of the type of pseudo-intellectual you're wanting to portray.

I've simply shown where you were wrong about what you've assumed, and now you're outright insulting me. Your frailty has been amusing. Way to get hurt over being called out on bad logic and low comprehension.

Now you run along on to other threads and shoehorn in Sun Tzu wherever you can, you may one day impress someone with even less brains than you. I'll wait for other decent repliers in this thread while you go and think about your bad form.

[BaldoBeardo]

Again.

Some abilities stack. Some do not. In most cases it is entirely evident from their wording which is which.

The specific example you are using is very clear.

If you will not accept the wording of the rules themselves as proof, then there is no proof that can be provided to convince you.

Edit: just cannot be bothered any more. If you don't learned English, well dang it.

[Choombatta]

Within range of an X.....

Within range of each X......

Do you agree that those 2 phrases have 2 distinct meanings?

[Squirrelmaster]

Put it this way:

This "Infernal Standard" rule triggers if you are within 9" of an "Infernal Standard". If you are suggesting that having two "Infernal Standards" on the table means the rule triggers twice (once for each standard), then you don't need to be within range of both standards to get the bonus — being within range of either standard means that both standards trigger, even if one of them is on the other side of the table. You would get two "saves", just for being within range of one standard, while the other is still alive.

Does that sound right to you?

The alternative is that the rule only triggers once, no matter how many standards you are within range of.

Now, when a rule talks about "this model" or similar, then clearly it has to trigger once for each model with that rule, instead of once globally.

I'll admit, it's weird that some rules trigger once-per-model while others trigger once-globally, but that's really the only interpretation that produces a sensible answer.

[Arkiham]

Basically. Your argument is.

If I can read it a certain way with enough emphasis on a word which isn't being given emphasis. It works how I want it to,  rather than how basically the entire population of aos is playing it.

The answer has been explained. Bickering isn't required.

This rule for the totem is one roll. Regardless of how many you have there,

As it is not worked the same as the 2nd picture , which is definitely worded towards stacking.

Within range of...This model, a totem, an so forth=stacking as they are talking about a singular thing, that particular model.

Withing range of any, a model within 9" of  an... etc = not stacking. As it is refering to multiples, any model.of that kind.

It's written that way on purpose.