In 1st Edition, I know there were rules for it, but I haven't found similar rules in 2nd Edition.

In essence: If a character has 9 again for a specific roll but due to some other ability he gains 9 again for the same roll. Does this increase the 9 again to 8 again? Or ONLY if the ability in question explicitly allows this?

  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not familiar enough with CoD to really answer this, but it's worth noting that 9 Again's bonus strictly doubled in terms of expected value would be less than the bonus granted by 8 Again. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 20, 2019 at 3:45

1 Answer 1


No, Unless an Exception is Explicitly Stated

There is no rule about 9-again qualities 'adding up' into 8-again (or other cumulative effects of 9- or 8-again) in the second edition corebook. (There are no provisions for a 7-again in a roll either, if it matters to you.) There are Merits which provide either a 9-again or an 8-again quality depending on level of the Merit (e.g. Trained Observer), but that's not a case of cumulativity.

In general, if one edition has a clause and another doesn't, it's 'unsafe' to just assume that the clause from an older edition applies to the new one. Such assumptions often lead to unforeseen and/or undesirable consequences. Also, one should not assume that the omission was accidental without serious evidence: if a clause is removed between editions, it usually doesn't make sense to spend the word count on explaining that this is intentional.

On exceptions: A common principle of handling the writing and interpretation of rules is that the specific overrides the general. Thus, even though there is no general rule on cumulative effects of 9-again, it's possible for a specific splat ability, equipment item, or the like, to have an explicit exception that states to 'upgrade' the roll quality. If so, this is an exception that overrides the general principle only in this case; do not use it as evidence for how things are handled elsewhere. (It does serve as evidence that an overruling is possible, but given the existence of Rule Zero, that's a borderline useless observation.)


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .