Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you have nothing better to do than post multiple times while others do things like work and sleep, don't assume you've won an internet argument. That kind of assumption, much like your position on this subject, is more baseless than conclusive.

He was referring to your post yesterday not containing any rules citations restricting page 2.

We are told on pg. 68 of the BRB that undefined powers which grant modifiers to friendly models are considered Blessings. On the same page, we are informed the different blessings are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Hammerhand grants a modifier to friendly models, which per the BRB means that Hammerhand is a Blessing. Since Hammerhand lack verbiage stating it can accumulate via multiple castings, the benefit from Hammerhand does not stack with other uses of Hammerhand on the same model. Might of Titan, however, does contain verbiage informing us that its modifier is cumulative with Hammerhand. The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not trumps pg. 2 (specific > general).

In your example, the Paladins wasted their warp charge, because the IC had Hammerhand covered for the unit the whole time. (Note: I'm a Grey Knight player, the advantage would be mine if Hammerhand did stack.)

I'm still waiting for your proof.

Hammerhand requires you to add 1 STR. Please explain why you're denying this.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Just because you have nothing better to do than post multiple times while others do things like work and sleep, don't assume you've won an internet argument. That kind of assumption, much like your position on this subject, is more baseless than conclusive.

He was referring to your post yesterday not containing any rules citations restricting page 2.

Indeed I was; this is now the 3rd time (at least) jeffersonian has refused / dissembled / been unable to provide any rules, well any applicable rules, that proves that the specific allowance to perform 1+1 and obtain 2, from any source different or same (because the scope of page 2 has no statement regarding any limitation on source, any source must be valid, by definition - permission granted for same source, or different source, to access the multiple modifiers rules) has been restricted.

RAW, page 2 allows 1+1 = 2, whether it is the same or different sources. This is, using actual rules, indisputable.

rigeld2 wrote:

We are told on pg. 68 of the BRB that undefined powers which grant modifiers to friendly models are considered Blessings. On the same page, we are informed the different blessings are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Hammerhand grants a modifier to friendly models, which per the BRB means that Hammerhand is a Blessing. Since Hammerhand lack verbiage stating it can accumulate via multiple castings, the benefit from Hammerhand does not stack with other uses of Hammerhand on the same model. Might of Titan, however, does contain verbiage informing us that its modifier is cumulative with Hammerhand. The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not trumps pg. 2 (specific > general).

In your example, the Paladins wasted their warp charge, because the IC had Hammerhand covered for the unit the whole time. (Note: I'm a Grey Knight player, the advantage would be mine if Hammerhand did stack.)

I'm still waiting for your proof.

Hammerhand requires you to add 1 STR. Please explain why you're denying this.

Waste of time, as this has been asked each and every time. Prepare for hand waving of page 68, or page 32, again.

Nobody is going to win this arguement untill an official FAQ from GW comes out about this subject. No point in argueing it because neither side has sufficient proof one way or the other.

Per RAW, pg. 2 allows (((Stat) * (Multiplier)) + (Modifier))[replace with set value].

Per RAW, pg. 68 tells us (((Stat) * (multiplier)) + (power1 + power2 + power3 + ...))[replace with set value].

The argument is whether or not "power#" means different powers from one or more casters, or the same power from one or more casters. The Stackers say "different powers = different casters, regardless of the power's name". The Non-Stackers say "different powers = differently named powers, regardless of caster".

My point regarding pg. 32 is that a precedent is set when applying multiples of the same modifier from different uses of the same ability, a specific rule that trumps the general rule on pg. 2. Psychic powers are another specific set of rules that bend or break the basic rules of the game, originally noted in the Special Rules section, and further fleshed out in its own section. As such, modifiers from psychic powers follow the basic rules as detailed on pg. 2, as well as the more advanced rules found on pages 32 and 68.

Stating that pg. 32 does not apply is to ignore the rules as written. Pg. 32 tells us that modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability (such as Hammerhand or Enfeeble) are not cumulative without specific permission. This means that the Stacker position is incorrect, as different casters is irrelevant if its the same power that is being cast multiple times.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Stating that pg. 32 does not apply is to ignore the rules as written. Pg. 32 tells us that modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability (such as Hammerhand or Enfeeble) are not cumulative without specific permission. This means that the Stacker position is incorrect, as different casters is irrelevant if its the same power that is being cast multiple times.

When you find the Psychic rules under Special Rules I'll agree. Until then any time you bring up page 32 you're doing yourself a disservice.
It's not "fleshed out later" - the sections are completely different and don't refer to each other.

pg 32 states that "Unless otherwise specified, a model cannon gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

Modifiers like the +1S from Hammerhand are not special rules, so page 32 is meaningless.

_e

You may say that, but the section does answer the pertinent question of what "different" means in the game. And since you all seem to be ignoring the fact that psychic powers are listed multiple times on pg. 32, as well as the Psyker special rule list later on the section, the Special Rules section is relevant.

Until a FAQ is released addressing the issue, your opinion on this has the same weight as mine, which is to say no weight at all. I'll leave this in the hands of the Tournament Organizers and call it a day. Good Day!

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You may say that, but the section does answer the pertinent question of what "different" means in the game. And since you all seem to be ignoring the fact that psychic powers are listed multiple times on pg. 32, as well as the Psyker special rule list later on the section, the Special Rules section is relevant.

I'm not ignoring that at all.
The multiple times it's referenced are talking about special rules being granted by psychic powers. The Psyker special rule isn't a superset of the psychic rules. You're ignoring that fact, and that's why the rules on page 32 are irrelevant.

An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

No such FAQ.

Afaik several of the "major" GTs ruled that same powers from different sources stack. He could have been reading a GT FAQ.

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Psychic powers are not special rules unless it says "The unit gains stealth." In which case you can't stack up stealth. But if the power doesnt give a unit the special rule I dont see anywhere in the rulebook where they wouldnt stack. Only if the power gives the unit a special rule would they not stack according to pg. 32

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
*snip*

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Well, I think Enfeeble stacking actually balances the meta more... it doesn't help any of the top three armies (Tau/Eldar/Necrons) but boosts Daemons (who ok, don't need it) and Tyranids (who definitely need any boost they can get).

I'm personally in favor of the RAW interpretation that they do stack, because every denial of the "multiple powers stack" has seemed to me like feeble clutching at straws in the wording. If we have permission to cast the power twice, and the power gives us permisiion to resolve it, they don't need to put it in every single reference that it can be used twice.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Adepticon ruled they stack. Nova rules they stack. Daboyz ruled they stack.

Weird that so many TOs agreed on the subject.

 jifel wrote:

Well, I think Enfeeble stacking actually balances the meta more... it doesn't help any of the top three armies (Tau/Eldar/Necrons) but boosts Daemons (who ok, don't need it) and Tyranids (who definitely need any boost they can get).

Stacking boosts Eldar quite a bit, as then they can stack Runes of Battle powers.

 hyv3mynd wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
An opponent in a tournament this past weekend was arguing with me about this and looked up some FAQ on his phone that said (I'm paraphrasing) "effects from the same power cast by different psykers are cumulative'. I did not look at his phone but the the TO I guess glanced at it and agreed.
However, I just went through the current GW main rulebook FAQ twice and could not find any FAQ relating to this issue...here's the link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3440036a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1.5_September_13.pdf

So can anyone find something in the current FAQ about it? Am I blinder than I think I am? Perhaps that was an old FAQ?


I am of the opinion however that the word different refers to the power, not to the caster. The dude playing 3 Tervigons, a Flyrant who all had Enfeeble somehow thought it should all be cumulative.
Good thing Fleshhounds with Abjuration deny the witch on a 3+!

Some of the bigger tournies have picked the same power stacks argument. so the tourny you were in might have been using one of them, or it was the FAQ for the tourny you were in. I think adepticon and astronomicon went that way. They also went with the drop pods losing hull points when the arrived, so even they can come out on the wrong side of these debates.

You'd at least hope tournies would pick the least powerfull version to maintain balance. But what can you do?

Adepticon ruled they stack. Nova rules they stack. Daboyz ruled they stack.

Weird that so many TOs agreed on the subject.

They also agreed on drop pods losing hull points when the come on the board from reserves. they were wrong on that one, so they can be (and are) wrong on this one as well. Their opinions on the matter only matter if you go to those events, outside those events their opinion is just as bad as anyone else.

Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You may say that, but the section does answer the pertinent question of what "different" means in the game. And since you all seem to be ignoring the fact that psychic powers are listed multiple times on pg. 32, as well as the Psyker special rule list later on the section, the Special Rules section is relevant.

Until a FAQ is released addressing the issue, your opinion on this has the same weight as mine, which is to say no weight at all. I'll leave this in the hands of the Tournament Organizers and call it a day. Good Day!

SJ

So again you are being deliberately misleading on what page 32 states?

It states you cannot gain special rules more than once. +1S isnt a special rule, unless you can, for once, find an actual rule stating so.

Page 32 doesnt apply. It has never applied. If you repeat this again, the assumption is you are trolling, as you cannot truly believe it applies, given the evidence provided to you.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

Yes, but hammerhand is a psychic power, which by definition was used by a psycher.
Pg 41 defines "psycher" as a special rule, as do the codices (so far I have looked at those I have, chaos x2 and eldar, tau notwithstanding).

The rules on p66+, "psychers" are therefore a subset or the explanation of what psycher the special rule means.
= the +1 from hammerhand was sourced from a special rule. Pg 2 is not specific enough here to sway the debate either way.

That plus the same/different debate seems to me the only challenge to pg 2.

Tbh, I am undecided (deny the witch and psychic hood give cause for concern).

Wounds from Monstrous Creatures are AP 2, the AP 2 comes from the special rule Smash, according to to page 32 special rules do not stack, therefore wounds from Monstrous Creatures do not stack.

How many special rules are you using when you use smash, which applies to all wounds?

The same rule, many times. Which under your idea that the "special rule" designation is totally transitive, means that wounds cannot stack.

I'd suggest your reading is a little broad.

Untrue.
You are using 1 rule once.
One special rule is applied to all wounds.

No, every time you cause a wound, you are using the rule "Smash" to resolve that wound at AP2, as opposed to the AP of the weapon (unless it is AP1)

One wound caused, Smash used
Next wound caused, Smash used
....
Nth wound causes, Smash used.

Your argument falls over.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

One wound caused, Smash used
Next wound caused, Smash used
....
Nth wound causes, Smash used.

No, smash used = all wounds ap2.

Smash is 1 rule that can do a number of things.
Smash (singular) "All of the close combat attacks ... are resolved at ap2." One instance of "smash" does this.

Smash does not stack in the way you suggest, it, that is, the single special rule smash applies to all close combat attacks.

For eg, split fire.
If this was performed in the way you suggest, anymodel with (say) an assault 2 weapon, would make the unit take one ld test for each shot fired.
You are incorrect.

Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.