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.

if you have say draigo in a squad of paladins and they both cast hammer hand does the str bonus stack essentially making the paladins str 6?

Yes.

holy hell are you kidding me? i was just hoping with a shot in the dark

Normally the question if multiple castings of the same blessing/malediction are cumulative is highly debatable. There are threads with a lot of pages about this.

Hammerhand on the other side is not a blessing. Its cast at the start of the fight sub phase. Its not called a blessing nor is it cast at the start of the turn. It also wasnt faqed to be a blessing.

It states that if you succesfully cast it the unit gains +1 strength. SInce both the IC and the Unit have permission to cast hammerhand at the start of the fight sub phase they get +1 strength for each casting of hammerhand that was succesful. Page 3 tells us that basic math applies when handling multiple modifiers so 4+1+1=6.

thanks, i was fully aware of the basic math but i am thankful for the rest of the information

Mywik is stating an opinion, not fact. We are specifically informed in the BRB that bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability on the same target are not cumulative without specific permission. Hammerhand does not have permission to be cumulative.

The "permission to cast = permission to resolve" argument is a false argument because "resolution" =/= "always cumulative".

The rules concerning this are found on pages 2, 32, and 68 of the BRB, and page 25 of Codex GK.

Back in 5th Ed, there was an FAQ that gave permission for all bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability to stack, unfortunately for Mywik that FAQ was replaced by a 6th Ed FAQ with no such language, while the BRB goes to great length to state cumulative requires specific permission. For an example of powers with specific permission to stack, look at the powers in the Chaos SM codex.

Also, there are over a half dozen locked threads on this subject, due to neither side of the argument being willing to budge until GW issues an FAQ addressing the problem. Common consensus among the more reasonable posters is to discuss it with your opponent or tournament organizer.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Spoiler:

Mywik is stating an opinion, not fact. We are specifically informed in the BRB that bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability on the same target are not cumulative without specific permission. Hammerhand does not have permission to be cumulative.

The "permission to cast = permission to resolve" argument is a false argument because "resolution" =/= "always cumulative".

The rules concerning this are found on pages 2, 32, and 68 of the BRB, and page 25 of Codex GK.

Back in 5th Ed, there was an FAQ that gave permission for all bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability to stack, unfortunately for Mywik that FAQ was replaced by a 6th Ed FAQ with no such language, while the BRB goes to great length to state cumulative requires specific permission. For an example of powers with specific permission to stack, look at the powers in the Chaos SM codex.

Also, there are over a half dozen locked threads on this subject, due to neither side of the argument being willing to budge until GW issues an FAQ addressing the problem. Common consensus among the more reasonable posters is to discuss it with your opponent or tournament organizer.

SJ

Fair enough. So you can add hammerhand to the debates although its not a blessing. Maybe i was so sure about it since i play grey knights for a while and never had anyone debate casting multiple hammerhands at the table, Unlike enfeeble. So mark my post as a hiwpi answer.

I play Grey Knights, too. Being able to stack Hammerhand would be great, if the rules let us.

SJ

The best thing is that if you allow multiple castings, you can potentially take GKs with Draigo, an =][= who knows Hammerhand and ally in 2x =][= from Codex:=][= who also know Hammerhand... cast all 4 and you get +4S.

If my opponent actually went to all that trouble, I would gladly let them do it. I play mobile Tau. You have to get INTO combat to use the bonuses to Strength


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh... and give one of the =][='s the Rad Grenades wargear. -1T to an enemy has a similar effect to +1S on your model. 4x Hammerhands + Rad grenades let you double out a toughness 5 model. If you have a weapon that boosts S by at least +2, (the sword maybe? def the hammer), you can double out a T6 critter. I'm 99% sure you test for doubling out against current T and not original T. I might be wrong on this though.

Actually were only informed that different are cumulative. There is no "unless", unlike jeffersonians oft repeated mischaracterisation of this.

You have permission to cast, and permission to resolve is granted unless you can show a restriction

Jeffersonian et al cannot show this restriction, ever, despite repeated requests To do so. The only conclusion being that this restriction is not present in the rule.

oh boy, i didnt mean to start a back and forth, img etting ready for the ATC and was just curious lol

One use of Hammerhand turns a Daemonhammer into an S10 weapon with ID, if the Daemonhammer is being used by a S4 model. If you could even prove Hammerhand is intended to be cumulative with itself, how are you activating your Force Weapons? You can already ID a T8 model on a 2+ with a S10 Daemonhammer.

Now, if the entire exercise of stacking Hammerhand is to get a bunch of Death Cult Assassins to the point they can hit at S10 at Initiative, you have to ask, "are they GK DCA or =][= DCA?" Codex =][= Hammerhand is a blessing. Codex GK Hammerhand does not have language stating it is cumulative. Nemesis DreadKnights already hit at S10 at Initiative with their ID inflicting Doomfists.

Also, people forget that Might of Titan does stack with Hammerhand, and can give a S3 Inquisitor with Daemonhammer a S10 attack that IDs a T8 model (if the Inquisitor is a Psyker).

As to stacking -1 T penalties, an allied Inquisitor with Rad Grenades and Enfeeble attacked to a Dark Angel unit with a Rad launcher will cause a charged target to be at -3 T if they succeed at casting, shooting, and charging. The question is, do they have enough Warp Charges to slap on a Hammerhand or activate their Force Weapon?

SJ

 theemporerprotectsnone wrote:
oh boy, i didnt mean to start a back and forth, img etting ready for the ATC and was just curious lol

Best thing to do is email them about this question. Nothing that will be posted in this thread will have any bearing on how its played in the tournament. Im pretty sure that this is a case they have already covered in the past and that they will gladly tell you how they rule it in their tournament.

As stated Hammer hand is not a blessing so the rules for blessings do not apply. It doesn't require specific text allowing it to be cumulative with itself like blessings do. As per the rule book you simply follow the text of Hammer hand, always resolving it as stated in its own text.

 Bausk wrote:
As stated Hammer hand is not a blessing so the rules for blessings do not apply. It doesn't require specific text allowing it to be cumulative with itself like blessings do.

Blessings don't require specific text allowing it to be cumulative with itself, as they have general permission to be cast and resolved on a single unit.

acording to the guys that are running the ATC (because i e-mailed them) yes it does stack with its self

And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect, yet in 4 different places in the BRB we are told different sources are cumulative. Permission to cast =/= always cumulative.

SJ

 theemporerprotectsnone wrote:
acording to the guys that are running the ATC (because i e-mailed them) yes it does stack with its self

And now its irrelevant to you what anyone here thinks about how it should be played ...

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,

We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.

yet in 4 different places in the BRB we are told different sources are cumulative.

SJ

Different powers are cumulative does not = the same power is not cumulative.

Permission to cast =/= always cumulative.

But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect, yet in 4 different places in the BRB we are told different sources are cumulative. Permission to cast =/= always cumulative.

SJ

"failed logic"£, from someone claiming that a permission to do X is a restriction on Y occurring?

Multiple modifiers gives you the permission needed to multiply modify something. Absent you ever, ever, EVER findsing your mythical restriction that is all the permission that is needed for something that applies a modifier to accumulate.

No need to rehash old arguments which were comprehensively proven any further. 4+1+1 = 6, until and unless there is a *rule* *stating* otherwise, as opposed to your inference

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,

We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.

The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.

This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,

We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.

The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.

This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.

I cast hammerhand, and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength. My strength is now (x)+1

I cast hammerhand again (from a different source, say, an IC), and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength again. My strength is now ((x)+1)+1.

show me where I have violated the rules

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,

We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.

The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.

This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.

I cast hammerhand, and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength. My strength is now (x)+1

I cast hammerhand again (from a different source, say, an IC), and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength again. My strength is now ((x)+1)+1.

show me where I have violated the rules

please clarify your use of the word resolve , you are currently not using it as per the definition. What criteria are you using to make the decision that the 2nd casting will stack with the first ?

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,

We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.

The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.

 DeathReaper wrote:
But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.

This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.

I cast hammerhand, and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength. My strength is now (x)+1

I cast hammerhand again (from a different source, say, an IC), and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength again. My strength is now ((x)+1)+1.

show me where I have violated the rules

please clarify your use of the word resolve , you are currently not using it as per the definition. What criteria are you using to make the decision that the 2nd casting will stack with the first ?

There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.

please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.

please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed

Don't have a rulebook on me. Sorry. Will do when I get home.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.

please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed

Don't have a rulebook on me. Sorry. Will do when I get home.

use the regular definition , its on the internet

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.

please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed

Don't have a rulebook on me. Sorry. Will do when I get home.

use the regular definition , its on the internet

it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?

The permission is implied in the "solution," I.E. adding +1. You "settle or find the solution to" a casting of Hammerhand by adding +1 to your current Strength, to a maximum of 10, with no restrictions.

Edit: Hell, here's my post with the definition of resolve instead of the word:

There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve 'settle or find a solution to' the power, and resolving 'settling or finding the solution to' the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.