bloodsecrator Does Rage of Khorne Stack?

[Kaleb Daark]

So... now you've got your own fighting pit to thrash this one out.

Fill yer boots.

 

My suggestion is that the losers buy the winners a box of minis when this finally gets FAQ'd.

[ledha]

One bloodsecrator use rage of khorne

units around are affected by rage of khorne, and then, gain 1 attack.

What happen if another bloodsecrator use rage of khorne in range of those units ? Are they affected again by another rage of khorne ?

GW answered this in the december 2016 faq, here https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Errata/warhammer_aos_rules_en.pdf

same abilites are stackable until stated otherwise, and the writing don't say anything about stacking.

so they can be affected a second time by rage of khorne, gaining 1 attack, and again and again, like before (and it never made khorne broken)

If it was not stackable, GW would have writen "affected by any number of rage of khorne" for example  like they always do when something is not stackable. 

 

My advice. I'll let it here.

[Kaleb Daark]

So... to put my money where my mouth is, I believe that they do stack, as I've said in the Lets chat: khorne.

I'm willing to put up a Bloodsecrator as colateral.

I'll eagerly await the FAQ for Blades of Khorne.

[Jharen]

The question isn't over the rule of abilities stacking.  We all know abilities can stack.  The problem arises in the specific wording (and wording change) of the Rage of Khorne ability.  As the FAQ states "unless specifically stated otherwise", there is an argument to be made that the new wording does indicate that this ability does not stack.  Now maybe that's not GWs intent, and if not they need to clarify this in a future FAQ.  The wording as it is now is confusing especially when viewed in context of the original wording ( why did they make the change at all?).  I won't begin to even pick sides on this matter because I think that is just a bit silly.  The wording is poor and the intent of the rules team is unknown.  I see it reading currently as not stacking  due to it now being worded as a qualifier adding bonus BUT I certainly see the argument as being fair that it does still stack.  This just isn't something we're going to get to the bottom of without an official response.

[thejughead]

I agree with@Jharen. I don't think we will see an FAQ so close to the new handbook. I think it will be addressed there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lardidar]

When I put two in my list under the old rules it didn't occur to me that it would stack so I'm not fussed if it doesn't.

I personally will play NO stack.... That way the only person I could be cheating is myself, if I played it did stack the GHB2 or FAQ said that it shouldn't I'd feel really bad for cheating my opponents until that point.

[Arkiham]

I feel it stacks due to the mention of "this model"

I'm willing to put forth a unmade  bloodstoker as collateral 

[Oppenheimer]

I'm confused as to why they changed the wording in BoK if they didn't intend to change it from stacking to not stacking. As far as I'm aware they've never before change wording without having it impact the rules.

[Kaleb Daark]

I Arkiham and I are on the happy side come FAQ,  my only request is that the FW facebook page / website / whatever gets a request to have skin wolves and War Mammoths allowed to take a chaos god mark again.

[Arkiham]

Yeah I'm fine either way. Just Don t want to miss out on potential buffs 

[Aspirant Snaeper]

Old Wording: It stacks

New Wording: It suggests that it doesn't stack, but could. 

They need to either explain this right away, or explain why they changed the wording to cause this mess. 

They need to just make an icon or something that goes next to an ability's name that indicates whether it can stack or not. 

■ = Does not stack with any other abilities. 

○ = Does not stack with the abilities of the same name.

☼ = Can stack with anything and everything. 

[Killax]

9 hours ago, ledha said:

Same abilites are stackable until stated otherwise, and the writing don't say anything about stacking.

My advice. I'll let it here.

Rules as Written
Same point here. There is nothing in the rules as written that prefents it from stacking. Therefor it can stack. 

The Warhammer TV game used the rules as written. There the Bloodsecrator's Rage of Khorne effect stacked. Because there is nothing written that suggests it could not do that. 

House-rules
In addition if I where to use a House-rule I'd say that SCGT has a nice set and this is also where the rumour came from that it wouldn't stack.
- What is important to know is that SCGT's House-rules specifically state that same name effects, abilities and spells do not stack.
- What is important to know is that SCGT's House-rules specifically state that prayers work the same way as spells.

The SCGT House-rules can be found HERE. The tournament where it did not stack used these, quite a lot of tournaments use House-rules.

Conclusion
It stacks and there are House-rules who prevent 'same name stacking' altogether.

[Beltrajor]

Just for not starting a new topic.

Do you think the demonic adornment crimsom crown staks? Would a 6 to  hit in range of 2 crowns generate 2 attacks?

 

[WSDdeloach]

Yes

[Killax]

6 minutes ago, Beltrajor said:

Just for not starting a new topic.

Do you think the demonic adornment crimsom crown staks? Would a 6 to  hit in range of 2 crowns generate 2 attacks?

 

In regards to Crimson Crown:

One additional also stacks. In other words, there can be multiple Crimson Crown 'areas' with this effect, in the same way that there can be multiple Rage of Khorne 'areas' with this effect.  As before, House-rules sometimes do not allow this. 
 

[Gilby]

Basically every ability stacks unless specifically stated otherwise as per rules errata. The only reason it doesn't is house rules. I'd suggest playing SCGT house rules or you should be measuring between weapons and models and placing your units on top of an enemy model's base according to vanilla rules. Start gluing all your bloodletters laying down to be out of range of Archaons axe if you want to play that way!

[Killax]

@Gilby certainly! However some House-rules stop at 'we meassure from base to base'.

Now the real SCGT House-rules question becomes, how does the SCGT handle Blood for the Bloodgod! and it's Blood Tithe points?

Because if the ability (Blood for the Bloodgod!) couldn't stack I am uncertain how many Blood Tithe points you'd be able to generate...
Logic would dictate that you can stack Blood Tithe points but the accumulation of it comes from stacking Blood for the Bloodgod! abilities.

I'm sure the TO would say you can stack those Blood Tithe points, but never feel afraid to ask  

[Brucimus]

I'm of the opinion that doesn't stack, only for the following reasons.

1. They changed the wording. If nothing has changed why did they bother, it's not like they've made it clearer?
2. It implies that if you are under the effect, add 1 to the Attack value (You are under an effect or you are not)
3. In the Heelanhammer podcast they straight up say it does not stack, and these guys have been heavily involved in playtesting upcoming rules, so it stands to reason they would have insight we don't.

I agree the rules are more ambiguous than they are clear, but you don't change something unless there is a reason for it.

There will be an FAQ/Errata

[Killax]

3 hours ago, Brucimus said:

In the Heelanhammer podcast they straight up say it does not stack, and these guys have been heavily involved in playtesting upcoming rules, so it stands to reason they would have insight we don't.

You can be certain they use the SCGT House-rules.

http://heelanhammer.com/ep167/ 

[thejughead]

You can be certain they use the SCGT House-rules.

http://heelanhammer.com/ep167/ 

@Killax, there was no mention in the podcast regarding SCGT. They were reviewing BoK and mentioned the rule changed and doesn't stack. SCGT has nothing to do with their statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brucimus]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

You can be certain they use the SCGT House-rules.

http://heelanhammer.com/ep167/ 

They weren't referring to their own house rules for SCGT.

Have a read from their Twitter when asked about the rule.

I think the intent on the rule is clear, it is an aura, you are affected, or you are not. If you are affected, increase your attack by 1.

There's heat 3 of the GT in July, they'll have to have a ruling on it by then.

[Killax]

Twitter is a fantastic source for heresay.

The actual Blades of Khorne and Bloodbound Battletome are a fantastic source for rules as written.

 
As before, there is nothing that stops you from being influenced by multiple Rage of Khorne effects, other than SCGT House-rules who explicitly state so.

[LLuck]

The change very clearly makes it binary now (you either are affected by rage of khorne or you are not), while before it clearly stacked. Seriously, what is the discussion about?

[Brucimus]

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

Twitter is a fantastic source for heresay.

The actual Blades of Khorne and Bloodbound Battletome are a fantastic source for rules as written.

 
As before, there is nothing that stops you from being influenced by multiple Rage of Khorne effects, other than SCGT House-rules who explicitly state so.

 

 

I'm not using Twitter as evidence, but merely to show that they are not quoting their SCGT house rules, but rather interpreting the rules as written, just like we are all doing in this thread.

However, the reason I use them as a quote is because they were part of the development of the Generals Handbook and multiple modern battletomes. So their opinion carries more weight than yours, to be frank.

Ask yourself this though, if you are on fire, do you become more on fire if someone sets light to you again?

Just now, LLuck said:

The change very clearly makes it binary now (you either are affected by rage of khorne or you are not), while before it clearly stacked. Seriously, what is the discussion about?

2

This, exactly this.

[Killax]

1 minute ago, LLuck said:

The change very clearly makes it binary now (you either are affected by rage of khorne or you are not), while before it clearly stacked. Seriously, what is the discussion about?

Incorrect. The discussion is about the option to be under multiple Rage of Khorne effects. There is currently NOTHING that says this cannot be done.

Step 1: Thake 3 Bloodsecrators
Step 2: Activate 3 Bloodsecrators
Step 3: 3 Rage of Khorne effects are present
Step 4: Rage of Khorne says add 1 for each unit within a Rage of Khorne effect, there is nothing that says this process cannot be repeated in the rules as written.
Step 5: Rage of Khorne says add 1 for each unit within a Rage of Khorne effect, there is nothing that says this process cannot be repeated in the rules as written.
Step 6: Rage of Khorne says add 1 for each unit within a Rage of Khorne effect, there is nothing that says this process cannot be repeated in the rules as written.

Total sum up/adding/stack = 3 added attacks. Why? Because nothing suggest that this process should be eliminated. Other than SCGT House-rules and Podcast members who very clearly work with said House-rules?