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.

Enough with the "joke" comments in this thread.

Final warning.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
p68 BRB "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative".

If you're casting Hammerhand twice, you're casting the same psychic power twice. It doesn't say that the effects of identical powers are cumulative, so no, it doesn't stack.

Classic logical fallacy called excluded middle. Try looking it up.

The only thing I need to look up are the actual rules. You should try that instead. Hammerhand is either a different power to Hammerhand, or it is not.

It isn't different, so two castings don't stack.

The rules do not state what you claim, so as per the tenets, back your assertion up.

My conclusion on this issue, though I am in disagreement from an 'How I Would Play It' standpoint as I believe the intent was not to stack:

The problem with this question is the lack of information provided by Game Workshop. There is more then enough evidence to imply intent on what they meant by 'different powers' when you take a look at how they used the words 'same power' and 'different power' throughout this section. It is also extremely clear that different psychic powers have permission to stack, because they out right state this, but they are very quiet on the question of 'do same powers stack?' even after months of debates. The problem is nothing within these sentences out-right states that the writer intended for the words 'different powers stack' to be read as 'same powers do not stack.' Even though it would be logical to read it as such, the format in which rules are written does not always allow for logical conclusions. Game Workshop rules are those which do not grant you permission to come to logical conclusions and some rules even break if you try, so we can not take this leap of logic....

Without a line stating the 'Same Powers do Not Stack' there is nothing technically preventing them from stacking if permission to resolve the power is granted... and it is.

Actually, as pointed out, it is a FALLACY to state that same powers do not stack, based simply on a statement that different powers do. You cannot, in a satisfactory manner, state such.

Still waiting why permission to resolve a modifier isn't sufficient. The made up requirement posited here needs some actual textual support, or it has to be withdrawn

As I said in the previous thread; The fact is different powers stack (redundant if a reminder as obviously this is the case) which leans towards same named powers not stacking unless stated otherwise as per the brb. Ignoring pre-6th ed powers (as they ise thier own rules listed in thier respective codices) there are a multitude of Blessings/Maledictions that state that they are cumulative coupled with the fact that others, even in the same codex and written by the same dev, do not have this specific statement of accumulation. This leads to the logical conclusion that same named powers are npt intended to stack unless they have specific wording allowing them to do so.

The alternative you would have us believe is a number of redundant reminders. I'm inclined to belive otherwise.

Without a line stating the 'Same Powers do Not Stack' there is nothing technically preventing them from stacking if permission to resolve the power cumulatively is granted... and it is not.

FTFY

And, as I put forth, where in the rules are you granted permission to make such a logical conclusion?

Don't fault me too much Bausk, your logical conclusion has a good deal of evidence to back it up and I have seen you make some very, very, good arguments on this topic. If all it took was applying logic to these rules then no one here would be in doubt that "Same Powers do not Stack." The problem stems from the fact that Game Workshop rules run on something more akin to 'Ork logic' then 'human logic.' To such an extent that applying logic to their rules has been proven to break things even further. This informs us that the only logic that matters is what was going through the writers twisted little mind when he penned this sentence, and he is very quiet on what that was.

Which is what frustrates me the most... we get stupid Frequently Asked Question answers for some of the most simplest of things but not a peep on something that has been debated throughout tournaments and all across the internet to such an extent. I'm positive once that answer is provided it will be 'no, same named powers do not stack' and this whole thing will then go away. Yet even with how easy it would be for them to correct a misconception, whichever view is the misconception, they simply not bothered with this topic at all. Sadly, again, par of the course for Game Workshop.

It's similar to models nit being able to move though other models, with note exception. The movement rules never cover it but its eluded to later in the rules. I agree it's very grey and the opposition does have an argument, though the argument doesn't include page two, having us belive that different means same named powers from different casters or the same citation being the most redundant reminder in 40k history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thier argument holds water with the lack of express denial of same power stacking. Nothing more than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addtionally, while yes powers are in of them selve not USRs we have a gw logic refernce from them in the matter.

grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

as we already have rules that state the accumulation

Citation nowhere does it state that the same power resolves cumulatively with itself.

Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.
Stacking is just a word used to describe something that basic maths already does.

As we are told when and how math applies to things it cannot be assumed.

grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.

Only in certain circumstances when we have permission to use maths may we do so. Where is the permission to resolve powers cumulatively (resulting in multiple modifiers and thus making page 2 relevant).

The very fact that there is a rule called "Multiple Modifiers" and not just "One Modifier".
There are rules covering the resolving of powers. There are rules for applying more than one modifier.
You're asking for permission for something that already has permission.
Will you then ask for permission for the permission? And permission for that?

to make the point clear, as we know modifiers are permitted stack but 'same' powers lack any direct statement of permission. How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit? Bearing in mind the modifier it creates is permitted accumulation but the effect itself is not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually, as pointed out, it is a FALLACY to state that same powers do not stack, based simply on a statement that different powers do. You cannot, in a satisfactory manner, state such.

Still waiting why permission to resolve a modifier isn't sufficient. The made up requirement posited here needs some actual textual support, or it has to be withdrawn

Because the effect is not a modifier. IE, if a model were immune to modifiers would it be immune to Enfeeble? No. It would only be immune to the modifier created by it's effect.

 Abandon wrote:
to make the point clear, as we know modifiers are permitted stack but 'same' powers lack any direct statement of permission.

Good thing we have a general allowance and specific permission is not needed.

How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?

That depends on the opposing army, but could be upwards of 4 when facing Nids.

Bearing in mind the modifier it creates is permitted accumulation but the effect itself is not.

Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
to make the point clear, as we know modifiers are permitted stack but 'same' powers lack any direct statement of permission.

Good thing we have a general allowance and specific permission is not needed.

How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?

That depends on the opposing army, but could be upwards of 4 when facing Nids.

Bearing in mind the modifier it creates is permitted accumulation but the effect itself is not.

Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.

Actually it does not.

general allowance to cast and resolve>Enfeeble come into effect on the unit>modifiers and SRs from that effect are applied

You've shown permission to do the first part several times and permission to stack the modifiers in the last part but you have not ever shown permission to 'stack' the middle part. Which makes weather or not the modifiers stack irrelevant until you do so.

If you read the BRB blessings and maledictions they all say 'while this power is in effect...' they get modifiers, SR's, etc. Which creates the need for the powers themselves to be cumulative in order to have more than one 'in effect'. Until such is shown, you can never have 4 Enfeebles in effect on a unit.

Note: Powers from 5th edition should be left out of any general debate on this as they are not worded for this edition and should instead be considered on a case by case basis IMO.

The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.

If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

 Alpharius wrote:
Enough with the "joke" comments in this thread.

Final warning.

Was that directed at me? Perhaps I should rephrase what I'm saying.

Saying that you do can not resolve a power on a unit that has a previous instance of the power in effect on it is because there is no specific permission to do so is nearly as ridiculous as saying you can't resolve a power on a unit made up of models with 4 limbs because there is no specific permission to do so.

Better?

 DeathReaper wrote:
The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.

If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.

If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

Except for, you know, the rules that tell us that targeting and resolution of a power is legal.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.

If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

Except for, you know, the rules that tell us that targeting and resolution of a power is legal.

That has nothing to do with what i just said.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.

If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

Except for, you know, the rules that tell us that targeting and resolution of a power is legal.

That has nothing to do with what i just said.

If you can not see that it does then it seems there can be no more discussion as there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your argument.

Abandon - the effect IS the modifier, and we have permission to apply multiple

You have created, out of thin air, an additional step you claim needs permission. As it is made up, it has no bearing here.

4+1+1=6. Done

Was that directed at me? Perhaps I should rephrase what I'm saying.

Saying that you do can not resolve a power on a unit that has a previous instance of the power in effect on it is because there is no specific permission to do so is nearly as ridiculous as saying you can't resolve a power on a unit made up of models with 4 limbs because there is no specific permission to do so.

Better?

The underlined is widely inaccurate no one has stated you can not resolve the power. All we have stated is that you have no permission to resolve the power cumulatively. So you resolve the power but there is no additional effect as the unit already has that power in effect on it.

That relies on the wording of the power though, and can you say with absolute certainty that "whilst the power is in effect" means the power Enfeeble in and of itself rather than the power Enfeeble you just cast? And what about Hammerhand, which doesn't have that wording?

I say that we can not adequately determine whether or not powers stack until GW explains what "the power" is referring to.

 DeathReaper wrote:

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

And you know this how?

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...

And you know this how?

Context.

If a psychic power is cast we need to read the specific psychic power to see how to resolve it, the context would dictate that they are talking about the casting of that psychic power you are resolving.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Context.

If a psychic power is cast we need to read the specific psychic power to see how to resolve it, the context would dictate that they are talking about the casting of that psychic power you are resolving.

First of all, if you understood context, you'd also know what 'different powers stack' implies.
Secondly, no you cannot deduce that from the context. It is at least as likely that 'this power' refers to that power in general eg. "whilst the Enfeeble is in effect..."

Well, 'different powers stack' is a reminder that different powers will indeed stack.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well, 'different powers stack' is a reminder that different powers will indeed stack.

And it is utterly nonsensical if same powers also stack.

No, no nonsensical, but redundant. Like all reminders.

Given the absolutely crystal clear denial in the special rules section, why are you ignoring the lack of denial here?

I have permission to resolve, the resolution is a modifier, and as per page two I know, precisely, how to resolve

There IS NO DENIAL. None. It would have been posted by now. There is just the made up assertion that there is an additional permission required, with no rules basis or precedent, that keeps getting tossed up.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Well, 'different powers stack' is a reminder that different powers will indeed stack.

And it is utterly nonsensical if same powers also stack.

By its nature a reminder is redundant.

And as nos has said, redundant not nonsensical, like all reminders.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - the effect IS the modifier, and we have permission to apply multiple

You have created, out of thin air, an additional step you claim needs permission. As it is made up, it has no bearing here.

4+1+1=6. Done

So you're saying Enfeeble is not 'in effect' on the unit? Well that would cause it not to function at all as it states it must be 'in effect' to do anything. I did not make that up. The power tells us what happens when it is in effect. That indicates a cause and effect relationship between the power being in effect and the resulting effects from that, such as a modifier. I did not make that up either.

IDK about all the codices but among the BRB blessings and maledictions this wording is a common theme. When put together with the description of how blessing/maledictions work they do indeed activate on the target and are sustained for a time. During that time the unit is effected by them in the way described according to the power. I'm simply asking how many times the power can be 'in effect' and by all indication this is separate from any end effect that might occur.

Of course specific powers my be worded differently then the rest and may indeed have permission to stack with themselves. I'm just speaking generically and using enfeeble as it both has a modifier and seems to be quite typical in wording.

So, what part came 'out of thin air'?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, no nonsensical, but redundant. Like all reminders.

It is nonsensical to remind in the general rules for psychic powers that specific sub-group of them stack if you actually mean that all do.

Given the absolutely crystal clear denial in the special rules section, why are you ignoring the lack of denial here?

That lack of denial is indeed the unfortunate omission that results this whole discussion.

I have permission to resolve, the resolution is a modifier, and as per page two I know, precisely, how to resolve

Yes, you resolve. And then the power is in effect. It doesn't matter how many times it is in effect. It is binary.

I've said this many times, but I say this again: the RAW is unclear, and anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves. There's no way to know for sure whether 'This power ' in power descriptions refer to individual casting or to the power in general.
However, 'different stack' and specific permission for stacking certain powers but not for other similar powers (in the same book) imply strongly that the intent is not for same powers to stack on default.

For the most part I agree with Crimson, until we know what "the power" refers to in Enfeeble and similarly worded powers we're basically guessing whether they're supposed to stack or not. But going back to the OP's question, as Hammerhand does not have the ambiguous wording of Enfeeble et al. it definitely stacks according to RAW.