bloodsecrator Does Rage of Khorne Stack?

[Killax]

In addition to this all, if Games Workshop wanted this to be a 'one time' effect they could have reworded it. They did for the Collar of Khorne. Which now allows you to unbined ONE spell instead of ∞. They clearly changed this. 

If Games Workshop wanted to have the Blood Tithe points cause little to no effect aside from the General they could have not re-worded many Command Abilities and keep the vast mayority of Bloodbound Heroes Command Abilities limited to uses for Generals. They didn't. 

Any suggestion that Games Workshop is trying to create competative balanced rules for Age of Sigmar is not seeing the truth for what it is. So far EVERY new Battletome allows for some insane things to happen. To be completely honest about it, Rage of Khorne stacking isn't even the worse thing AoS has to offer, not by a long shot.

If you want to have a competative balanced effect ruling I'd certainly use SCGT's House-rules.

Cheers,

[LLuck]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

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? 

Your rules interpretation would lead to a unit being in range of a single Bloodsecrator gain x additional attacks, while x is the number of bloodsecrators on the field - it is in range of Rage of Khorne and apparently there are x instances giving it an additional attack. So either you get one extra attack, independent on how many bloodsecrators are within 18" (what most people read and propbably RAI), or you get ALL additional attacks if you are in range of at least one bloodsecrator (this is also plausible as written but feels like nonsense).  There is no way to read the rule to get one additional attack for each secrator in range (see step 4-6 in your example, each instance only checks if the unit is affected, not affected by that instance).

[Kaleb Daark]

24 minutes 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?

It's a thread on it's own about a cyclic debate that will have no end until a FAQ or errata which took up the best part of four pages on anothe thread and started to derail a thread after that, so it's now got it's own fighting pit to slug it out in... and Me and Arkiham are staking free stuff on the outcome, so it's win win for everyone...

Simples!

18 minutes ago, Brucimus said:

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

Er, yes you do, because technically the first conflaguration can go out or exhaust itself and thus a secondary incendiary source will not only add to the conflaguration but will draw in not only more oxygen which will make the fire rage hotter and more intense thus making the fire far larger and more dangerous until the flames have spread to encompass not only you but your surroundings as well... or I think that's what my mate who's a fireman eluded to.

 

Anyway... free bloodsectrator if it's a win for the no stack camp for two of you at least!

[Killax]

4 minutes ago, LLuck said:

Your rules interpretation would lead to a unit being in range of a single Bloodsecrator gain x additional attacks, while x is the number of bloodsecrators on the field - it is in range of Rage of Khorne and apparently there are x instances giving it an additional attack. So either you get one extra attack, independent on how many bloodsecrators are within 18" (what most people read and propbably RAI), or you get ALL additional attacks if you are in range of at least one bloodsecrator (this is also plausible as written but feels like nonsense).  There is no way to read the rule to get one additional attack for each secrator in range (see step 4-6 in your example, each instance only checks if the unit is affected, not affected by that instance).

- You are not getting one extra.
- You add 1.

Adding under the current rules is not a limited process. Like you can add Blood Tithe points (limited to 8).
As before, if GW wanted to limit it, it would have been written there. This occured in a lot of new wording, changes can be found in the other topic I just placed.

Don't blame me for what you deem nonsence. As above, AoS is full of these kinds of wording. The moment it doesn't say it is limited, it isn't limited. AoS started out without any restriction.
 

[LLuck]

Just now, Killax said:

- You are not getting one extra.
- You add 1.

Adding under the current rules is not a limited process. Like you can add Blood Tithe points (limited to 8).
As before, if GW wanted to limit it, it would have been written there. This occured in a lot of new wording, changes can be found in the other topic I just placed.

Don't blame me for what you deem nonsence. As above, AoS is full of these kinds of wording. The moment it doesn't say it is limited, it isn't limited.
 

So you feel like if you are in range of one bloodsecrator, you should get one additional attack for each bloodsecrator _anywhere_ on the map since this is the only way to read the rule with it giving more than one additional attack. As I said, this is plausible RAW, but the "not stacking" seems more plausible as written and is in all likelihood what was intended. In addition, people that argue for multiple attacks argue for one extra for each bloodsecrator in range, which is no possible interpretation of the rules.

[Killax]

3 minutes ago, LLuck said:

So you feel like if you are in range of one bloodsecrator, you should get one additional attack for each bloodsecrator _anywhere_ on the map since this is the only way to read the rule with it giving more than one additional attack. As I said, this is plausible RAW, but the "not stacking" seems more plausible as written and is in all likelihood what was intended. In addition, people that argue for multiple attacks argue for one extra for each bloodsecrator in range, which is no possible interpretation of the rules.

Units in rangeof one Bloodsecrator get the effect of one 'Rage of Khorne effect'.
You do not gain anything anywhere on the map because the rule specifically states that the Bloodsecrator and any unit within 18" with Keyword Khorne are affected. 

Units in range of three Bloodsecrator get the effect of three 'Rage of Khorne effect'. Why? Because there is nothing that would prefent that. If GW would intend to keep it at ONE, they would have done so, they did for the Collar of Khorne, Blood Tithe use, unbinding, Artefacts placed on Heroes....

As before, I would simply use SCGT House-rules for local tournaments aswell. I don't say it makes sence, I say what the rules as written allow for.

[LLuck]

Edit: To clarify, each unit in this picture would get 4 extra attacks with that interpretation.

[Killax]

1 minute ago, LLuck said:

Edit: To clarify, each unit in this picture would get 4 extra attacks with that interpretation.

While I guess that's the crazy train  CHOO CHOO!

I have no idea what is supposed to represent the Bloodsecrator.

[LLuck]

2 minutes ago, Killax said:

Units in rangeof one Bloodsecrator get the effect of one 'Rage of Khorne effect'.
You do not gain anything anywhere on the map because the rule specifically states that the Bloodsecrator and any unit within 18" with Keyword Khorne are affected. 

Units in range of three Bloodsecrator get the effect of three 'Rage of Khorne effect'. Why? Because there is nothing that would prefent that. If GW would intend to keep it at ONE, they would have done so, they did for the Collar of Khorne, Blood Tithe use, unbinding, Artefacts placed on Heroes....

As before, I would simply use SCGT House-rules for local tournaments aswell. I don't say it makes sence, I say what the rules as written allow for.

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.

 

Reread what you wrote, and you will see that EVERY unit affected by ANY RoK will get EVERY RoK extra attack. Secrators are in the center of the RoK (Rage of Khorne) circles.

[Cookiez]

29 minutes ago, Killax said:

Because nothing suggest that this process should be eliminated.

The wording makes it clear. The unit is in the range of Rage of Khorne - you add 1 attack, it isn't - you don't add. It can't be affected by multiple Rages, it either is or it isn't.

[Killax]

9 minutes ago, LLuck said:

Reread what you wrote, and you will see that EVERY unit affected by ANY RoK will get EVERY RoK extra attack. Secrators are in the center of the RoK (Rage of Khorne) circles.

None of those "Units" are affected because there is no Khorne keyword on any of them.

 

1 minute ago, Cookiez said:

 It can't be affected by multiple Rages, it either is or it isn't.

Not a written rule on that. Not one.

Cheers,

[Brucimus]

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

None of those "Units" are affected because there is no Khorne keyword on any of them.

 

Not a written rule on that. Not one.

Cheers,

 

Can I ask you a question Killax.

Why do you think GW changed the wording on the rule? To make it from where it was clear it stacked, to now making it ambiguous? What is the reason?

[Wotyn]

To me it is pretty obvious that the Rage of Khorne does not stack, by virtue of them using the word 'the'. THE Rage of Khorne, ie singular, ie its a single thing which can be applied to multiple bubbles, but being in any of these bubbles applies THE singular Rage, as opposed to an instance of it which would stack.

If it stacked the text would be THIS Rage of Khorne, which would tell us that it was something that happened multiple times. 

Really following the exact wording this reads fairly obviously, and the fact they changed the wording anecdotally supports this, no need to change the wording if it did stack.

[Killax]

7 minutes ago, Brucimus said:

Can I ask you a question Killax.

Why do you think GW changed the wording on the rule? To make it from where it was clear it stacked, to now making it ambiguous? What is the reason?

Clearity (and failing to do so, as is seen  ). They did the same for Collar of Khorne, Artefacts, Skarbrand and more.
In the previous variant of the wording it refered to 'these units'. "These units" doesn't refer to any ability. Now the effect refers to Rage of Khorne.

As before, if they wanted to say that you could only be under the effect of Rage of Khorne once, they would or they could have. The same applies for Prayers vs Spells. In addition every rumour that says that it wouldn't stack lead me to SCGT House-rules or members of podcasts who are very clearly involved with SCGT House-rules.

The SCGT House-rules are a great way to try and add a logical approach. Granted they also prefent stacking from Blood Tithe points now. The suggestion that AoS is full of logical rules is laughable. As another example, we do not even have to use mathematical order of operation.

Thus ask yourself, if you can create a 22+ attack Mighty Lord of Khorne with Mark of the Destroyer, how on earth would Rage of Khorne not stack if there is nothing in it's wording that would stop that?
 

[Iain]

I had assumed from the various podcasts etc that the not-stacking would be really clear cut now, but actually looking at the warscroll, it's just as ambiguous as before. I would say nothing has changed - where does it say that a unit can't have the Rage of Khorne twice at the same time? Maybe they didn't spell it out because GH2 will put a blanket ban on same ability twice. But until then, or until it's FAQ'd I wouldn't assume it has changed. Remember the "Chaos Talisman doesn't work on Mortal Wounds" debate, and how wrong everyone was.

[Brucimus]

3 minutes ago, Killax said:

Clearity (and failing to do so, as is seen  ). They did the same for Collar of Khorne, Artefacts, Skarbrand and more.
In the previous variant of the wording it refered to 'these units'. "These units" doesn't refer to any ability. Now the effect refers to Rage of Khorne.
 

3

Well clarity is not seen by all, but the rule was perfectly serviceable before if stacking is what was intended, as EVERYONE knew it stacked.

But you wouldn't change it if people were playing it correctly. Clearly they wanted it to change and the rule has changed, if it sparks this much debate then the rule is different. And the only way it can be different is how we are trying to explain it.

Also stop throwing the SCGT house rule thing about, i'm coming at this purely as the rule is written. And I have never even read the SCGT house rules for the upcoming tournament.

Lets leave order of operation out of this, that is a different discussion and off topic.

[Gilby]

5 hours ago, Killax said:

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...

Don't need to stack it (/worry about it if you play no stacking house rules) as the ability itself says you get 1 for each unit wiped out. Stacking it would be getting 2 tithe points for each unit wiped out.

 

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Twitter is a fantastic source for heresay.

I read that as heresy at first! 

[Wotyn]

Ok, here are some variations and what they would mean, its down to a single word. The line under discussion is "When they attack, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of all melee weapons used by units affected by the Rage of Khorne"

• affected by each Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by a Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by this Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by every Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by any Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active
• affected by the Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active

Its one word and it is clearly calling the Rage of Khorne a singular effect, whether you have five overlapping bubbles of it or not. Plus the rule before was obviously stacking and they deliberately changed it which there was absolutely no need to do otherwise. Plus some of the people involved flat out said it doesn't stack. It doesn't stack.

[Arkiham]

35 minutes ago, Iain said:

I had assumed from the various podcasts etc that the not-stacking would be really clear cut now, but actually looking at the warscroll, it's just as ambiguous as before. I would say nothing has changed - where does it say that a unit can't have the Rage of Khorne twice at the same time? Maybe they didn't spell it out because GH2 will put a blanket ban on same ability twice. But until then, or until it's FAQ'd I wouldn't assume it has changed. Remember the "Chaos Talisman doesn't work on Mortal Wounds" debate, and how wrong everyone was.

Same with skarbrands total carnage being stopped by ward saves and halved by some models rules.  

[Brucimus]

11 minutes ago, Wotyn said:

Ok, here are some variations and what they would mean, its down to a single word. The line under discussion is "When they attack, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of all melee weapons used by units affected by the Rage of Khorne"

• affected by each Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by a Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by this Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by every Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by any Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active
• affected by the Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active

Its one word and it is clearly calling the Rage of Khorne a singular effect, whether you have five overlapping bubbles of it or not. Plus the rule before was obviously stacking and they deliberately changed it which there was absolutely no need to do otherwise. Plus some of the people involved flat out said it doesn't stack. It doesn't stack.

 

Well that was thorough lol, excellent post.

[KnightFire]

10 minutes ago, Wotyn said:

Ok, here are some variations and what they would mean, its down to a single word. The line under discussion is "When they attack, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of all melee weapons used by units affected by the Rage of Khorne"

• affected by each Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by a Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by this Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by every Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by any Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active
• affected by the Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active

Its one word and it is clearly calling the Rage of Khorne a singular effect, whether you have five overlapping bubbles of it or not. Plus the rule before was obviously stacking and they deliberately changed it which there was absolutely no need to do otherwise. Plus some of the people involved flat out said it doesn't stack. It doesn't stack.

Thats kind of how I interpret the new wording. 

Its kind of like saying:

Put red paint on all units within 18"

Units with red paint on them have +1 attack

 

The rage of khorne is a property that a unit either has, or doesn't have. Like having flu.

[Killax]

24 minutes ago, Wotyn said:

Ok, here are some variations and what they would mean, its down to a single word. The line under discussion is "When they attack, add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of all melee weapons used by units affected by the Rage of Khorne"

• affected by each Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by a Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by this Rage of Khorne > stacks - implies multiple instances
• affected by every Rage of Khorne > stacks - obvious
• affected by any Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active
• affected by the Rage of Khorne > doesn't stack - states that there is only a single Rage of Khorne no matter how many 'bubbles' are active

Its one word and it is clearly calling the Rage of Khorne a singular effect, whether you have five overlapping bubbles of it or not. Plus the rule before was obviously stacking and they deliberately changed it which there was absolutely no need to do otherwise. Plus some of the people involved flat out said it doesn't stack. It doesn't stack.

False, example: the Battalion can include multiple Battalions stacking effects. The Battalion The Goretide can be also taken more then once in armies. The Goretide can consist out of multiple other Battalions.

Things stack unless stated to not do so.

[KnightFire]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

False, example: the Battalion can include multiple Battalions stacking effects. The Battalion The Goretide can be also taken more then once in armies. The Goretide can consist out of multiple other Battalions.

Things stack unless stated to not do so.

Where has anyone mentioned battalions? Im not sure how thats relevant to anything (or even what you are saying, a unit can only be in one battallion, but a battalion can be in another battalion (but only one))

 

Where is the rule that says things stack unless it says they don't?

 

This clearly doesn't stack any more, because of the change in wording.

[Killax]

Wording on Rage of Khorne does not state it wouldnt stack.

RAW do not ever suggest the Bok refers to a sigular effect.

Limiting effects such as use of Blood Tithe points or Collar of Khorne define the limit. Rage of Khorne does not. 

Read as is written.

[KnightFire]

8 minutes ago, Killax said:

 

Read as is written.

we are, just because it doesnt say "does not stack" in bold flashing itallics, doesn't mean it stacks. The wording, as written, clearly suggests its something you have or don't have, rather than it being something you have an amount of.