Then the effect is, "you have +1 strength until end of the assault phase".

5, as you have +1 strength, unless there is a statement that those two statements are cumulative.

You're still not allowing the second one to resolve. If you were, you'd be applying the +1 STR as it requires.

I am applying the effect "All models in the unit have +1 strength until end of the assault phase". The effect doing anything according to what you just said does not have anything to do with the resolution. the effect is apparently separate from the power.

Yes. But the effect has been applied to the unit twice. You're only applying it once.

I am applying both ettects, both effects stat that the unit has something. It has it after the first effect and the second effect doesn't say "add +1 strength", it says it has +1 strength.

 jegsar wrote:
I am applying both ettects, both effects stat that the unit has something. It has it after the first effect and the second effect doesn't say "add +1 strength", it says it has +1 strength.

What you are missing is that 4+1+1 =6

I am saying that it only adds one. No where does it say that additions of strength are cumulative when added from the same psychic power. It states it has +1 strength until end of the assult phase. Then it states it again that it has +1 strength again until end of the assault phase, it already has that. If it said, all models in the unit have an additional +1 strength then i would agree. Different being is you take everywhere that states stuff stacks as a reminder, I take it is adding a cumulative effect to these type of statements.

 jegsar wrote:
I am saying that it only adds one. No where does it say that additions of strength are cumulative when added from the same psychic power. It states it has +1 strength until end of the assult phase. Then it states it again that it has +1 strength again until end of the assault phase, it already has that. If it said, all models in the unit have an additional +1 strength then i would agree. Different being is you take everywhere that states stuff stacks as a reminder, I take it is adding a cumulative effect to these type of statements.

Page 2 proves your statement incorrect.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

Note it says Additions. +1 and +1 are additions.

"combination of rules..." it's the same rule, from the same power... Thank you for finding the sentience I was looking for this entire time.

It has a combination of rules - the same rule twice is still "rules"

I cast. I AM strength 5, because I have added 1 strength
I cast. I AM strength 6, because I have added 1 strength

Your unsupported and entirely ruleless contention is that you do not add this +1S after the first casting.

English IS hard, apparently, as you are claiming the word "unmodified" or "1 or more castings of...." is present, when it isnt.

You have no argument. Every single argument has been debunked, and we are back on you claiming, with no backing whatsoever, that maths doesnt work how it actually works.

You have $500 in your bank account.

Assuming anything either man A or man B says must be true and if not true instantly becomes true...

Man A walks up to you, "You have plus 50 dollars in your bank account this month" 1 minutes passes
Man B walks up to you, "You have plus 50 dollars in your bank account this month"

How much money is in your bank account? (I was even able to use the word plus in the sentience and it still doesn't work out with you adding them together.

Second scenario,
man A, "$50 have just been added to your bank account and
will be removed at the end of the month." 1 minute passes
man B, "$50 have just been added to your bank account and will be removed at the end of the month."
This would add them together.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no, rules would be multiple rules, this is 1 rule applied twice, It's still 1 rule.

You move through dangerous terrain with a bike, and a activated dimensional key is within 12 inches, how many checks do you make for 1 bike? 1, 2, or 3?

One, because you're explicitly told to only ever take one per turn.

And if it didn't state that? Also it's not 1 per turn but thats beside the point.

1 rule, is 1 rule, no matter how many times applied unless stated otherwise.

So your contention is that, despite the power saying otherwise, you dont actually resolve the power before moving on?

You are stating that, when a model has HH cast on it, it is NOT S5 at that point?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So your contention is that, despite the power saying otherwise, you dont actually resolve the power before moving on?

You are stating that, when a model has HH cast on it, it is NOT S5 at that point?

When you check the strength of the models in the unit, with no other mods and base strength 4, it will be said to be strength 5.

The resolution of the power is placing the rule "all models in the unit (including independent characters) have + 1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase." on the unit, it doesn't change the strength of a unit but places an effect on the unit.

So you are saying you delay the aplication of the +1S until you check it for some reason?

Please find a rule stating this, because the actual rule states otherwise (there is no time given, so it applies the +1S immediately you resolve the power)

I am not saying you delay or don't delay anything. I am saying that it is constantly being recalculated, where are you getting this delay from?

When HH is resolved the rule (aka effect) gets applied.
As far as figuring out it's strength, you must look at each rule applied to it whenever you check it's strength, or whenever you apply a new rule you must check it, either way you look at it, it's the same.

Becuase if you apply it immediately, you go from S4 to S5. You are not at S4+1, you ARE S5

You then cast it again. You are told the unit is now Strength +1. What is the units CURRENT strength?

5

So the unit MUST go to S6.

If you disagree please provide a rule saying the unit is not actually S5 when the secodn casting is resolved.

alright.
I have a power fist. This makes me S8... then HH is cast upon me... what S am i?

A powerfist does not make you strength 8, it makes you strike at 2xuser

Hammerhand Makes you S+1, and comes before modifiers, so you are (S+1)*2

Try again, answer why you are not resolving the +1S before casting the second one.

Alright, Iron arm with the roll of a 1, instead of HH. Same scenario.

Assuming you start at STR 4, you're STR 5 now.

Nos was talking about something with timing and S5 vs S4+1 and about delaying the strength bonus.
You need to read from where you left off, to follow.
My last point is still that "you have +1 strength." stated twice is not the same as saying you have +2 strength as it is only 1 rule causing this benefit.

 jegsar wrote:
Nos was talking about something with timing and S5 vs S4+1 and about delaying the strength bonus.
You need to read from where you left off, to follow.
My last point is still that "you have +1 strength." stated twice is not the same as saying you have +2 strength as it is only 1 rule causing this benefit.

I followed. I answered your question.
And again, you're incorrect. There's 2 rules stating that - you keep ignoring that the second power resolved.

The answer to the question is 9 as it's the same senario as the powerfist but it is applied after the power first and therefor is not 5 but 4, "the model has +1 strength until the start of the players next movement phase" X2 from striking with the power first. however it's applied 4*2+1 and remembers the rules and how they effect it. Not 4+1=5... later x2 when striking.

I said previously to which you didn't respond
I am applying both effects, both effects state that the unit has something. It has it after the first effect and the second effect doesn't say "add +1 strength", it says it has +1 strength.

Then Reaper brought up

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

to which i responded with the fact that it is the same rule and not 2 rules, when you apply HH twice. As the same rule applied twice is still the 1 rule just stated twice.

It is a combination of rules - the same rule

{A,A} is still a combination. Your assertion is wrong, meaning your conclusion is wrong.

YOu are S(4+1)+1 = 6. Literally no other way to explain how fundamentally wrong you are

 jegsar wrote:
The answer to the question is 9

No. Absolutely wrong. Even wearing a power fist a space marine is never STR 9. He'd be STR 5 and strike at STR 9.
That may be what you meant to ask, but you didn't ask that question.

as it's the same senario as the powerfist but it is applied after the power first and therefor is not 5 but 4, "the model has +1 strength until the start of the players next movement phase" X2 from striking with the power first. however it's applied 4*2+1 and remembers the rules and how they effect it. Not 4+1=5... later x2 when striking

Objection, relevancy.

I said previously to which you didn't respond
I am applying both effects, both effects state that the unit has something. It has it after the first effect and the second effect doesn't say "add +1 strength", it says it has +1 strength.

You've said it before. I answered then. DR answered well enough this time.

Then Reaper brought up

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

to which i responded with the fact that it is the same rule and not 2 rules, when you apply HH twice. As the same rule applied twice is still the 1 rule just stated twice.

Except you're not applying the additional one.
Base 4.
Unit has +1. What is the units STR?
Unit has +1. What is the units STR?

If you say 5 you continue to not apply the second rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
The answer to the question is 9

No. Absolutely wrong. Even wearing a power fist a space marine is never STR 9. He'd be STR 5 and strike at STR 9.
That may be what you meant to ask, but you didn't ask that question.

you are correct, Apply the same questions to, "at the time of striking" as this is the only time i care about the Strength relevant to a powerfist anyway.
As you can see it isn't strength 5 but strength 4+effect(s)=value of strength.

as it's the same scenario as the powerfist but it is applied after the power first and therefor is not 5 but 4, "the model has +1 strength until the start of the players next movement phase" X2 from striking with the power first. however it's applied 4*2+1 and remembers the rules and how they effect it. Not 4+1=5... later x2 when striking

Objection, relevancy.

Strength is checked and recalculated from the start each time you need to know the strength, therefore when you add more strength it is not adding x2 to 5 it's breaking it back down to the original, 4+1 -> 4*2+1=9 instead of 5*2.

I said previously to which you didn't respond
I am applying both effects, both effects state that the unit has something. It has it after the first effect and the second effect doesn't say "add +1 strength", it says it has +1 strength.

You've said it before. I answered then. DR answered well enough this time.

Then Reaper brought up

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

to which i responded with the fact that it is the same rule and not 2 rules, when you apply HH twice. As the same rule applied twice is still the 1 rule just stated twice.

Except you're not applying the additional one.
Base 4.
Unit has +1. What is the units STR?
Unit has +1. What is the units STR?

If you say 5 you continue to not apply the second rule.

You have a bank account starting with $500 in it. Assuming whatever man A or man B say to be true and if not true it is made true. Man A, "You have Plus $50 in your bank account this month". 1 minute passes. Man B, you have plus $50 in your bank account this month". How much money is now in your bank account? $550.
That is argument 1.

Argument 2 is that P2 states a combination of rules... "The models in the unit have +1 strength until end of the assault phase." that is a rule. You give me that rule twice, it is still a single rule given twice, not a combination of two rules. To combine 2 objects you need to have 2 objects. Here you have 1 object that you are trying to combine with itself. If you disagree with this, find me another rule (outside of the psychic powers that we are arguing over) that stacks with itself and doesn't explicitly state that it stacks with itself.

Saves would stack with other saves if they weren't explicitly prohibited from doing so, the same way that HH stacks because you aren't prohibited from resolving it twice or more. The effect of Hammerhand isn't a Special Rule (see earlier in the thread for silly stuff that would happen if it were) and is as such not prohibited from stacking with itself, ergo multiple instances of Hammerhand stacks.

As for the bank account argument, +50$ this month compared to what?

Saves would not stack. No where do you get +1 to your save (outside of special rules which clearly do not stack with themselves), it says you get a 3+ save and a 4+ save etc... very different. Also this is not a rule stacking with itself. Notice how I say rule, not special rules. The multiple benefits from the psyker special rule is another argument but these 2 are less confusing and still hold true.

Find any rule that stacks with itself, that doesn't state that is has permission to stack with itself.

The same thing that +1 strength is being compared to. It's written in an identical way. The first time you add it, the second time you already have an additional $50 in your bank account so you don't need to change the amount of money in the bank account to make the statement true.

Again: you are inserting new wording not present.

You are comparing the +1S to the unmodified Strength. Why? NOthing in the rule for HH requires this.

I am S4. I add 1 to my strength. What Strength am I now?

Answer JUST that question.

5, no argument there.

I am however not saying unmodified strength. I am saying that it already has a rule that states it has +1 strength. You have +1 strength. Your now strength 5. You have +1 strength. Yes you do, you don't need another +1 strength to have +1 strength.

Now answer me any of the following 3 questions.

you have a bank account starting with $500 in it. Assuming whatever man A or man B say to be true and if not true it is made true. Man A, "You have Plus $50 in your bank account this month". 1 minute passes. Man B, you have plus $50 in your bank account this month". How much money is now in your bank account?

or

Can you find a rule in any 6th edition rulebook that stacks with itself where there isn't explicit permission for it to stack with itself? (this will satisfy me even though it doesn't prove anything)

or

Prove that HH and HH are two rules and not just 1 rule being applied twice. (this breaks P2)

And if you weren't explicitly forbidden, saves WOULD stack, because you'd have permission to use more than one save and nothing preventing you from doing so.

Look at it this way: "The unit has +1 Strength" is synonymous with "the unit has an additional 1 Strength". If you were told to add 1 Strength to something, what would you do?

To continue your money example: Let's say you sell apples. You get +$50 every time you sell an apple. If you sell two apples, would you then interpret that as meaning that you only get $50, despite being told that if you sell an apple you get $50?

You are changing the wording. HH makes a statement, not performing an action.

As far as saves, that is not stacking as in cumulative first off and second, what single rule can you apply multiple times to get multiple saves? (psychic powers are under argument so don't say a psychic power) and it says it doesn't allow it so you can't do it, i asked for you to find a single rule that you CAN stack and this is cumulative, that doesn't state it can be done directly.

I made the same statement about the bank that HH makes about strength. How much money is in the bank after those two statements are made?

OK, so I now cast HH again. What Strength am I now?

I WAS Strength 5, am I now S5, breaking the second casting, or S6, following the rules exactly for the second ccasting?

You are, in error, comparing to unmodified strength. You have no allowance to do so.

Your example is incomplete. "You have an extra $50" would mean you have X+$50. If someone else comes up and gives you an extra $50, you have X+100 - otherwise you have not fulfilled the second requirement.

The second casting doesnt check to see if you already have +1S, it means you have 1 more strength than you already had. You have ALREADY SAID that you "have" Strength 5, so you must then have S6

2 castings of hammerhand means you have 2 rules in operation. The fact the rules are the same does not break the fact tha t the unit has 2 rules in operation.

HH doesn't say, "Here, have +1 strength" it says "you have +1 strength" stop changing the words.

It is the same rule, not multiple rules... it's applied multiple times.

I have been answering your questions now actually answer one of mine without rewording.
Note i didn't say someone walks up to you and hands you $50 just stated that you have "plus $50 in your bank account this month", if you want you can change it to, "until the end of this month". Problem is you don't know if it is referring to the same $50s or not. Both are vaguely worded, but since it is already true, then you don't need to do anything with that statement to make it true.

If I'm told that twice, I expect $600 in my bank account.

Well I am sorry to disappoint, both men were talking about the same $50s since that is all that is needed for their statements to be true. Both are true at $550.

 jegsar wrote:
Well I am sorry to disappoint, both men were talking about the same $50s since that is all that is needed for their statements to be true. Both are true at $550.

Cite something - anything - saying that the +1 is the same.

The same rule twice is still 2 rules. Maths tells you this.

An apple is a fruit. So is an orange. If I have 2 apples, I still have 2 fruit, even though they are the same fruit.

Yes, so at that moment in time I have X+50. The result (resolution) of that is now fixed and is my new balance

The next person walks up and says I have +50. I look at my current balance and then add 50 to it.

If you are stating I in total only have 50 more, then you have inserted an extra condition - that I have +50 compared to my original balance that morning and not my continually updated balance.

I have $100. I have an additional $50. I look up my balance, I now have $150. I do not have %100+50, I have $150

Someone walks up and says I have an additional $50. IF I look at my account and see I still have $150, then that statement is a lie - I do not have an additional $50, I have the same amount as I did before they walked up to me

That is about the simplest way to explain that you are creating an additional condition.

Cite anything that doesn't. It's coming from the same rule, and P2 states a combination of rules.

How is +1, the same as plus $50?

Well i think we can agree that the word "plus" is interchangeable with the symbol "+". and dollars... well that is the same as $.
So we are rewrite both:
plus 1 strength...
+50 dollars...
We can even do
+1 dollar
and it still works the same way.
How is it not the same?

All I said is that the statements made must be true, if it isn't true then it becomes true. After the first time, once you make that statement again nothing needs to change for it to be true.

Yes, and we have shown that 2 of the same thing is "something" pluralised. Whetehr objects or rules.

You are making ever more rediculous arguments, as you are now claiming that 2 of something isnt in fact 2 things, but one thing. Crazy.

The reason you are struggling is you are continually comparing to the base value. You have NO RULE allowing you to do so, and despite being shown that this is what you are doing you are still denying it.

I think this is definitely past due a thread lock, given we are now essentially trying to show you how you are adding words that dont exist, and you are denying this is the case.

Nos, you have a apple. If you don't you do now.
Nos, you have a apple.
Is the second statement not true after the first statement was made true.

As far as the same rule...
If i give stealth twice to the same unit does it stack? No? why? it's the same rule as stated on page 32. "A model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once." "A ... rule" no matter how many times i give it stealth it is the same rule. Same with HH, it is the same rule. (This is just stating that A (singular) rule refers to a rule and not an instance of the rule as you are stating that different instances of HH from different casters are actually different rules. This has nothing do the with the special rules part.)

You ADD an apple. Add != Have

I have 0 apples. You ADD an apple. I have one apple.
I have 1 apple. You ADD an apple. I have 2 apples.

If you say I only have one apple you have not ADDED an apple the second time.

Understand yet how what you are saying is 100% wrong? We're on basic English comprehension here!

If you give the same model Stealth, you only get +1 to cover saves. Why? Because it states that Special Rules do not stack

Hammerhand is NOT A SPECIAL RULE. A RULE about SPECIAL RULES does not apply unless you are talking about SPECIAL RULES

I thought we'd finally proven this to you already? A Psychic power *may* grant a special rule, it does not *have* to grant a special rule. Can you please, for once, focus on one argument until we can show you how thoroughly we have debunked ity? Especially when you refer to an already debunked argument.

Not talking about Psyker...
read slowly...
"A model cannot gain the benefit of A special rule more then once."

If i give a model stealth twice, is that a special rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 special rules?

Read slowly:

Hammerhand is not a special rule.

Does a rule dealing with special rules have any relevance to hammerhand?

Simple yes or no, please. Because again, this is the same debunked argument from 4 pages ago.

I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

 jegsar wrote:
Not talking about Psyker...
read slowly...
"A model cannot gain the benefit of A special rule more then once."

If i give a model stealth twice, is that a special rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 special rules?

+1 Strength is not a special rule. Furthermore, this ridiculous interpretation has already been refuted, as it'd lead to psykers only being allowed to cast one psychic power per game. Otherwise they'd be benefiting from the same special rule more than once...

 jegsar wrote:
I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice. +1 Strength (as in, ADD one Strength, since that's what + means) isn't even a special rule.

Is this thread going anywhere or are we just stuck in an endless loop of "It doesn't stack/ It does stack"?

 jegsar wrote:
I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

No, we wont get past it because it is an irrelevancy. Hammerhand is not a special rule. A rule about special rules has no place in this argument.

Can you please answer the other questions, where we have shown that yet again your bank a/c argument is refuted? Which refutes any argument you have about HAmmerhand?

Please, if you can actually try just one argument, once you see it is refuted we can move on. A simple concession of the point will also help keep things moving

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice.

Alright so we agree if you have a rule twice it is still only 1 rule? good.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

HH is only applied once since it is only 1 rule, not 2 even when it is cast twice.

 jegsar wrote:

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice.

Alright so we agree if you have a rule twice it is still only 1 rule? good.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

HH is only applied once since it is only 1 rule, not 2 even when it is cast twice.

I'm sorry, what page is Hammerhand on? I'm not finding it in the Special rules section of the BRB.

It is a rule... doesn't matter if it is special or not.
However p2. "a combination of rules"
It is a (singular) rule. When given twice is still a single rule.

General rule says benefits from the same special rule do not stack, unless otherwise noted (pg 32, BRB).

Hammerhand (HH) gives a unit the benefit of special rule: S+1.

Unit has S4.
/cast HH = S+1
/cast HH = S+1
/cast HH = S+1
Unit has S4+1 after 3 castings of HH, due to the general rule that benefits from the same special rule do not stack.

Might of Titan (MoT) gives the benefit of special rule: S+1 (stacks with HH).

Unit has S4.
/cast HH = S+1
/cast HH = S+1
/cast MoT = S+1
/cast MoT = S+1
Unit has S4+2 after 2 castings each of HH and MoT, because HH and MoT are different powers with permission to stack per both pg 32 and pg 68 of the BRB. Also of note is that MoT has a special rule that specifically states that it stacks with HH (pg. 25, GK codex)..

The only time HH stacked with itself was after the 5th edition FAQ that specifically stated multiple castings of the same power were cumulative. Before that FAQ, multiple castings of HH were not cumulative. 6th edition specifically states that multiple castings of the same power are not cumulative unless otherwise noted. HH does not note that it stacks with itself, as can be seen clearly on pg. 25 of the GK codex. In addition, neither of the 2 released 6th Edition FAQ for GK have mentioned multiple castings of HH stack.

Based on the fact that the BRB tells us that benefits from the same special rule do not stack in general, and that only benefits from different special rules may stack specifically, we can see that multiple castings of Hammerhand will never produce more than a single +1 bonus to a unit's strength unless noted otherwise by GW. At the current time, GW has not otherwise noted.

SJ

I still stand by what i said about it not working regardless of it's specialty however if you want to see that HH must be special...

page 2, what we have been missing this entire time

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics....

meaning it must be wargear (i don't think so) or a special rule in order to modify a characteristic... I can't find anything else that allows me to modify the characteristics and since HH is not wargear... HH is a special rule.

No Hammerhand is a psychic power. Special rules are things like Stealth, Unwieldy, Armourbane, etc.

As I stated regardless...
It is a rule... doesn't matter if it is special or not.
p2. "a combination of rules..."
It is a (singular) rule. When given twice is still a single rule.

 jegsar wrote:
As I stated regardless...
It is a rule... doesn't matter if it is special or not.
p2. "a combination of rules..."
It is a (singular) rule. When given twice is still a single rule.

And, again, you finish applying the first Hammerhand before moving on to the next, which means you have S5. Then you add the next HH and get S6, because 5+1=6.

No i am implying that HH is a single rule, it states a combination of rules on page 2. multiple modifiers

If a model has a combinations of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any... then apply any additions...

Does it have a combination of rules applying or 1 rule that is trying to be applied twice? (You answered this above, it's 1 rule)
And yes i am implying that a rule is an entire rule and not just +1 strength. Further I will imply that you need to look at what is affecting a characteristic again when you go to modify it again. Point being when you go to modify a model with a power first and the strength bonus to striking, after iron arm has been cast on it. It re does the calculation completely, putting in the power fist first then the iron arm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So it is not set and forget, we have to keep in mind what rules are affecting the model and how they interact. HH for example would go before the power first but you would still need to check that by reading HH.

 jegsar wrote:
Find any rule that stacks with itself, that doesn't state that is has permission to stack with itself.

First you need to define what the word "rule" means exactly and completely in relation to this question. Your definition must be able to answer at least following things: is effect of a Special Rule (as defined in BRB) a "rule"? Is effect of a psychic power a "rule"?.
This is required because otherwise you'll just reply to all examples found with "That is not a rule" or something like that. So we need to have exact definition of "rule" from you so that you cannot backpedal.

 jegsar wrote:
Find any rule that stacks with itself, that doesn't state that is has permission to stack with itself.

Does that include rules that do not state they stack with itself, but were asked about (so are an FAQ but not an errata/amendment)?

That is a good question, what is a rule...
I would say everything that states anything about the game, that is not fluff is a rule. Though we have moved on from that a while ago. I think we can agree that HH is a rule. If it's not a rule, or wargear it doesn't have permission to modify a characteristic and since it isn't wargear it must be a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Happy FAQs are rules yes. If the FAQ can stack with itself without explicit permission I would accept that but I thought you wanted to concentrate on 1 thing at a time.

Right now we are talking about

 jegsar wrote:
No i am implying that HH is a single rule, it states a combination of rules on page 2. multiple modifiers

If a model has a combinations of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any... then apply any additions...

Does it have a combination of rules applying or 1 rule that is trying to be applied twice? (You answered this above, it's 1 rule)
And yes i am implying that a rule is an entire rule and not just +1 strength. Further I will imply that you need to look at what is affecting a characteristic again when you go to modify it again. Point being when you go to modify a model with a power first and the strength bonus to striking, after iron arm has been cast on it. It re does the calculation completely, putting in the power fist first then the iron arm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So it is not set and forget, we have to keep in mind what rules are affecting the model and how they interact. HH for example would go before the power first but you would still need to check that by reading HH.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
So lets figure this out before we move on to another topic. Unless you think HH is not a rule but something else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw with the quote i am stating that since it is talking about multiple rules, and this is a single rule, then it does not stack.

So what if you have a Power Axe and Furious Charge? Those both give +1S after all.

And you still haven't answered the Armour Save example. I'll run it again a bit more thoroughly:

Let's assume you have 2 armour saves, a 4+ (from 'Eavy Armour) and a 4+ (from the Ork Bike you're driving). Let's also assume that the blanket prohibition of taking more than one save existed. You get hit by an S4 AP5 attack. What would prevent you from taking both the saves, i.e. stacking them? You'd have permission to use both the saves and you'd have no rule explicitly forbidding it. In short, we'd have a situation that mimics that of Hammerhand. Back to reality, why does it explicitly say that it's forbidden to take two saves if that doesn't matter? If it's just a reminder, I refer to earlier in the thread where we pointed out that the "different powers" part is effectively a reminder. If it's because you'd otherwise be allowed to stack saves then the Hammerhand situation is identical minus the blanket prohibition, ergo you're allowed to stack Hammerhand.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So what if you have a Power Axe and Furious Charge? Those both give +1S after all.

They are separate special rules that give +1str, hence why stacking


you cannot stack FC on FC

or power axe on power axe,

or any special rule on itself

special rules are on pretty much everything, weapons, wargear, abilites, pg 32 is very clear that whenever gear or abilities bend/break the normal rules, they are then special rules, and dont stack with themselves

the rule on saves also explicitly states you only ever, EVER, get one, so your save argument is not the best analogy to make.

Why is +1S different from +1S?

Also, don't dodge the other question. I know what the rules say about saves, which is why I adresses that in the example.

+1str is not the special rule, it is the benifit of a special rule.


the rule is you cannot stack the benifit from the same special rule, not that different special rules cannot stack the same benifit

you are also given express permission to stack different USR's benifits

you are denied, explicitly, permision to stack identical USR's benifits


power axes have their own special rule, so does FC, hence stacking

Except Hammerhand is not a special rule.

It is a Psychic power.

Premise 1: The unit, with two castings of HH have two rules applied to it. (Do we agree?)

 jegsar wrote:
alright.
I have a power fist. This makes me S8... then HH is cast upon me... what S am i?

You Strike at Str 10 if you are base Str4 + Hammerhand and a Powerfist.

 jegsar wrote:
Strength is checked and recalculated from the start each time you need to know the strength, therefore when you add more strength it is not adding x2 to 5 it's breaking it back down to the original, 4+1 -> 4*2+1=9 instead of 5*2.

This is not correct for Hammerhand. HH makes you strike at Str 10 with a powerfist.

 jegsar wrote:
I still stand by what i said about it not working regardless of it's specialty however if you want to see that HH must be special...

page 2, what we have been missing this entire time

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics....

meaning it must be wargear (i don't think so) or a special rule in order to modify a characteristic... I can't find anything else that allows me to modify the characteristics and since HH is not wargear... HH is a special rule.

False Dichotomy

It does not say that ONLY wargear or special rules can modify. Again, you are literally making up rules here, by inserting words that do not exist.

Dont.

You are also stating that "a combination of rules...." means "ONLY a combination of rules...."

Again, you are literally making up rules.

Dont.

Any more arguments we can easily refute?

This thread needs a lock down, bad. The side stating that HH does not stack with itself has patiently cited the rules supporting their position. The side stating that HH does stack with itself seem to be arguing individual words in the English language rather than their actual position. Case in point the post directly above mine.

SJ

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Hammerhand is not a special rule.

It is a Psychic power.

Premise 1: The unit, with two castings of HH have two rules applied to it. (Do we agree?)

No I asked this question and AlmightyWalrus answered which i agree with, it is 1 rule is stated/applied twice.
I say it is a special rule, but that is irreverent to my argument as long as we agree the HH is a "rule". As long as we agree it is 1 rule then page 2 covers it under

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

HH is only applied once since it is only 1 rule, not 2 even when it is cast twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nos, you can only do what the book says you can do. that is the grounds on which a permissive rule set is made. It states a combination of rules can modify. No where does it state the same rule can modify twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Show me a rule that does modify twice without explicit permission. Armor saves do not stack, show me something that does stack.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This thread needs a lock down, bad. The side stating that HH does not stack with itself has patiently cited the rules supporting their position. The side stating that HH does stack with itself seem to be arguing individual words in the English language rather than their actual position. Case in point the post directly above mine.

SJ

Subjective.

Its easily shown that the anti-stacking side has fabricated rules without backing. Even to the point of manipulating rules as they appear in print.

Oh and death I am not just talking about HH, when I am talking about HH i state that i am. Covered on page 12, you always have to recheck what effects there are, it just happens that HH would be re applied first. Yes that is S10. Now replace that with Iron Arm and you see how reapplying changes the outcome when you strike.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The side stating that HH does stack with itself seem to be arguing individual words in the English language

Welcome to YMDC. The nature of the forum (and of the rules discussed herein) pretty much requires discussion of words.

Sorry... getting annoyed at people interrupting and back quoting without answer the question presented to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
I still stand by what i said about it not working regardless of it's specialty however if you want to see that HH must be special...

page 2, what we have been missing this entire time

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics....

meaning it must be wargear (i don't think so) or a special rule in order to modify a characteristic... I can't find anything else that allows me to modify the characteristics and since HH is not wargear... HH is a special rule.

False Dichotomy

It does not say that ONLY wargear or special rules can modify. Again, you are literally making up rules here, by inserting words that do not exist.

Dont.

You can ONLY do what the book says you can do, permissive ruleset. It also says anything that is outside of a normal rule which is obviously a rule that doesn't change any standard rules is a special rule. Either HH is a special rule because it does something not normally allowed by the paragraph about modifying characteristics or it's a special rule because it does modify characteristics (where the paragraph states special rules, or wargear...) , however my argument doesn't require it to be a special rule as long as we agree it is a single rule even if cast multiple times.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Hammerhand is not a special rule.

It is a Psychic power.

Premise 1: The unit, with two castings of HH have two rules applied to it. (Do we agree?)

 jegsar wrote:
alright.
I have a power fist. This makes me S8... then HH is cast upon me... what S am i?

You Strike at Str 10 if you are base Str4 + Hammerhand and a Powerfist.

 jegsar wrote:
Strength is checked and recalculated from the start each time you need to know the strength, therefore when you add more strength it is not adding x2 to 5 it's breaking it back down to the original, 4+1 -> 4*2+1=9 instead of 5*2.

This is not correct for Hammerhand. HH makes you strike at Str 10 with a powerfist.

what is a special rule
pg 32

in the USR section,
pg 32
"whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"
pg 66 *psykers*
*to use his abilities to full effect, a psyker must focus ..*

just because you seem to be in denial over psychic powers being abilities with special rules that bendébreak the main rules, while the BRB says it is.

also, pg 2 says *certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a characteristic's positively or negatively by adding to it(+1,+2, ect)*
so if psychic powers are not special rules, are you claiming them to be wargear?

denying something is a special rule
is to deny that an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, making something stronger is actually specifically listed as one of the examples of what special rules do.

normal rule, your model is at Str=S
special rule makes it S+1

so if your rule is not special (psychic powers or weapons or race or terrain all grant special rules) then you cannot modify the main rule of the model being at Str S


are psychic powers rules or special rules?

what chapter are they in? psykers pg 66-69

where is the psykers rule located? pg 41 in the special rules section, saying it has it's own chapter on pg 66-69, because it is just that special.

are psychic powers abilities? yes, this is also said word for word in the BRB

do psychic powers modify the normal rules in BRB? you bet, you get to modify stats and do lots of other stuff you wouldnt normally be able to do.
all the above is 100% undeniable

yet you say powers are just boring old normal rules, that do not modify normal rules.

prove the power doesnt bend or break a normal rule, or its a special rule,



Pg 32 BRB
"what special rules do i have?"
**most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a models attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.

where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or type of terrain in question will make this abundantly clear.

most of the commonly used special rules in 40k are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.**


i see pages of denial, and *oh but I can cast the power again from another unit*, according to the psykers special rule of course, which you can do with stealth too, cast it all you want, it wont stack with itself, even though its an additive multiplier.

and though 1+1=2 in real life, repeating over and over that 1+1=2 does not mean additive multipliers from special rules or wargear stack in 40k by default.

you have yet to provide any evidence allowing a non special rule to modify characteristics, let alone stack with itself

 jegsar wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except Hammerhand is not a special rule.

It is a Psychic power.

Premise 1: The unit, with two castings of HH have two rules applied to it. (Do we agree?)

No I asked this question and AlmightyWalrus answered which i agree with, it is 1 rule is stated/applied twice.
I say it is a special rule, but that is irreverent to my argument as long as we agree the HH is a "rule". As long as we agree it is 1 rule then page 2 covers it under

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

HH is only applied once since it is only 1 rule, not 2 even when it is cast twice.

So 2 castings of HH are not two of the same rules in effect for the target unit?

Got any rules to back that up?

Why are you ignoring the second application of HH (Even if you say it has no effect, it was legally cast upon the unit).

You don't get to stack HH

yes, all powers stack.

 Aglobalthreat wrote:
You don't get to stack HH

We have shown permission to cast HH with two different psykers onto the same unit.

The other side has not shown any rules that restrict this permission.

2 different HH's are a "a combination of rules...that modify a characteristic" P. 2 (2 castings of HH is literally 2 of the same rule(AKA a combination of the two rules) that modify a characteristic).

Therefore they are both applied.

and as 4 +1 +1 = 6, the unit becomes Str 6.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Also, don't dodge the other question. I know what the rules say about saves, which is why I adresses that in the example.

Still waiting.

Two instances of the same rule is still two rules.

And you're being dishonest. You said yourself earlier in the thread that everything that isn't fluff is rules . "However, to use his abilities to the fullest, a Psyker must focus on a limited number of powers to hone and master." (pg. 66) is fluff, and yet you cite it as rules.

Additionally, the +1S is not a direct benefit of being a Psyker, casting a psychic power is. As you're only allowed to cast Hammerhand once per Psyker you still wouldn't be breaking any rules, unless you start counting indirect advantages, at which point the Psyker system and a substantial part of the rulebook collapses.

And, as nos said, omission does not prove exclusion. You're told that different powers stack, not that two instances of the same don't.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This thread needs a lock down, bad. The side stating that HH does not stack with itself has patiently cited the rules supporting their position. The side stating that HH does stack with itself seem to be arguing individual words in the English language rather than their actual position. Case in point the post directly above mine.

SJ

Yes, dissecting how a rule is written usually means you need to look at the words used. It is bizarre for you to say otherwise

Oh, and to point out - your entire argument was based on one flaw: that you stated HH was a special rule, or gave a special rule. It isnt, and doesnt. Nothing you said therefore proves your side
The Stacking side has repeatedly shown rules, the anti-stack side have yet to show any actual rules

Jegsar - 2 of the same rule is a combination of rules. {A.A} is a combination that can be made out of the string (A,B,C). Your point is, yet again, refuted.

YOu are fabricating rules by adding words that are not there. Dont

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Also, don't dodge the other question. I know what the rules say about saves, which is why I adresses that in the example.

Still waiting.

Two instances of the same rule is still two rules.

And you're being dishonest. You said yourself earlier in the thread that everything that isn't fluff is rules . "However, to use his abilities to the fullest, a Psyker must focus on a limited number of powers to hone and master." (pg. 66) is fluff, and yet you cite it as rules.

Additionally, the +1S is not a direct benefit of being a Psyker, casting a psychic power is. As you're only allowed to cast Hammerhand once per Psyker you still wouldn't be breaking any rules, unless you start counting indirect advantages, at which point the Psyker system and a substantial part of the rulebook collapses.

And, as nos said, omission does not prove exclusion. You're told that different powers stack, not that two instances of the same don't.

Armor saves do not stack in the game, i asked for something that does. No need to dodge as it doesn't answer my question.

I will quote you here where you state, it is 1 rule being applied twice not two rules.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question, If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules? Once we get past this I will get back to HH

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice.

Back to page 2, 2 instances of A rule is still A rule and therefore singular. The multiple modifiers states a combination of rules.

One again if you do not have permission to do something, you cannot do it. I have permission to stack separate powers, you do not have permission to stack the same power. By not having permission you are not allowed to do it since you can only do what is stated. If something allows you to do it, then that is outside of the normal characteristics modifier rules on page 2 and therefore must be a special rule. If it's a special rule then it cannot stack with itself unless stated otherwise.

Though HH already does something outside of the normal rules by changing the order of multiple modifiers are applied so it is a special rule... Page 32, and page 2..,

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list.

Not all special rules are stated in this section.

first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions,

This main game rule/normal rule is changed by HH

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

HH therefore must be a special rule

Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once.

HH is not cumulative.

How does "+!S" BREAK or BEND a game rule? Show the rule it breaks.

As has been repeatedly shown to you your premise is faulty; it asks for a combination of rules. 2 of the same rule IS a combination of rules

{A,A} is a valid combination, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise

I mean, the difference between s6 and s7 is really massive 99 times out of 100 versus t4, so let's make a 13 page thread why your already-powerful marines with beefed up assault cannons in infantry squads can get one more strength in CC, right?

HH cannot stack- it's like casting protection from evil twice in D&D. You can cover more area (models), but you won't give a cumulative benefit for each time you cast it on the same dude, at least not in 6th edition. I believe the rules quoted in this thread, and GW's clear intentions in making sure nothing stacks, proves this point.

uberjoras wrote:
I mean, the difference between s6 and s7 is really massive 99 times out of 100 versus t4, so let's make a 13 page thread why your already-powerful marines with beefed up assault cannons in infantry squads can get one more strength in CC, right?

HH cannot stack- it's like casting protection from evil twice in D&D. You can cover more area (models), but you won't give a cumulative benefit for each time you cast it on the same dude, at least not in 6th edition. I believe the rules quoted in this thread, and GW's clear intentions in making sure nothing stacks, proves this point.

Except this isn't D&D. This is war(hammer). And besides, D&D has enough problems of is own. I still haven't seen a rule that says same powers (not same rules) don't stack.

 Happyjew wrote:

uberjoras wrote:
I mean, the difference between s6 and s7 is really massive 99 times out of 100 versus t4, so let's make a 13 page thread why your already-powerful marines with beefed up assault cannons in infantry squads can get one more strength in CC, right?

HH cannot stack- it's like casting protection from evil twice in D&D. You can cover more area (models), but you won't give a cumulative benefit for each time you cast it on the same dude, at least not in 6th edition. I believe the rules quoted in this thread, and GW's clear intentions in making sure nothing stacks, proves this point.

Except this isn't D&D. This is war(hammer). And besides, D&D has enough problems of is own. I still haven't seen a rule that says same powers (not same rules) don't stack.

As he has said here, this is a different system entirely. The side supporting the stacking Hammerhand has presented a case that has not been refuted beyond saying "no" and citing the same rule over and over, which they have shown is not applicable. Looking at the ratio of people who have given ACTUAL evidence to Hammerhand stacking, and those who have just said "it doesn't". Earlier, easysauce presented evidence which he believed meant that hammerhand did not stack, however, about 3 or 4 different people, many of whom are commonly seen in these threads and are known by the community as people who know the rules, have shown contrary evidence that has yet to be countered. Bringing a different game like D&D as an example of 40k in this situation is less than useful.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
This thread needs a lock down, bad. The side stating that HH does not stack with itself has patiently cited the rules supporting their position. The side stating that HH does stack with itself seem to be arguing individual words in the English language rather than their actual position. Case in point the post directly above mine.

SJ

Yes, dissecting how a rule is written usually means you need to look at the words used. It is bizarre for you to say otherwise

Oh, and to point out - your entire argument was based on one flaw: that you stated HH was a special rule, or gave a special rule. It isnt, and doesnt. Nothing you said therefore proves your side
The Stacking side has repeatedly shown rules, the anti-stack side have yet to show any actual rules

Jegsar - 2 of the same rule is a combination of rules. {A.A} is a combination that can be made out of the string (A,B,C). Your point is, yet again, refuted.

YOu are fabricating rules by adding words that are not there. Dont

My entire argument might be based on a flaw, however, pg. 32 of the BRB, under "What Special Rules do I Have?", 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, suggests otherwise.

"Similarly a model might get special rules as a result of psychic powers ..."

"When this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic powers ..."

The BRB treats the effects of psychic powers as special rules if the effects bend or change the general rules of the game. Hammerhand changes the rules of the game by granting a benefit to a unit of a +1 Strength bonus that is applied before other modifiers. That is a special rule, as defined on pg. 32 of the BRB. Also stated on pg. 32 of the BRB is that unless otherwise noted, benefits from the same special rule are not cumulative. On pg. 68 of the BRB, we are further reminded that the effects from [b]different]/b] psychic powers are cumulative. Is Hammerhand cast by a Grand Master different from Hammerhand cast by a squad of Purifiers? Same name, same effect, same power, not cumulative per the BRB.

We have an excellent example of another psychic power in the same codex as Hammerhand, on the exact same page as Hammerhand's entry (pg. 25), with the exact same benefit: Might of Titan. Might of Titan grants a +1 Strength bonus to a unit as well as an additional 1d6 penetration versus vehicles, and has a specific note that Might of Titan stacks with Hammerhand. Different name, same effect, different power, is allow to stack with other similar powers per the BRB as well as a specific power per its own entry.

While arguing that psychic powers are not special rules might seem to be a way of disregarding the "non-stacking" side, it is the failure of the "stacking" side to apply the rules as written on pg. 32 of the BRB, pg. 68 of the BRB, and pg. 25 the GK codex in order to support their side as valid. The "non-stackers" have cited repeatedly the rules supporting their side of the argument. The "Stackers" have only cited rules giving permission to resolve powers (which the Non-Stackers do not disagree with) while stating that psychic powers are not special rules. I would challenge the "Stackers" to prove that the benefits of two or more of the same power are cumulative by citing specific rules the support their position; however, those rules do not exist at this time, because it was a 5th Edition FAQ that allowed stacking in the first place, an FAQ that has been superseded by 6th Edition FAQ that makes no mention of same powers stacking yet does point out examples where benefits from the same wargear are not cumulative. Reminder, the BRB treats rules from wargear, psychic powers, scenarios, and terrain that bend or change the general rules of the game to be special rules, which follow the rules listed on pg. 32 of the BRB.

I would say that at this time, this argument is finished.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Is Hammerhand cast by a Grand Master different from Hammerhand cast by a squad of Purifiers?

They are two different powers, as they are cast by two different psykers.

Just like two identical meltaguns are still different meltaguns.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

My entire argument might be based on a flaw, however, pg. 32 of the BRB, under "What Special Rules do I Have?", 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, suggests otherwise.

"Similarly a model might get special rules as a result of psychic powers ..."

"When this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic powers ..."

Where is the special rule Hammerhand defined? Since you (and your side) keeps asserting that it's a special rule, it has to be defined somewhere, right?
Psychic powers can definitely grant special rules. Iron Arm grants one. Endurance grants 2.
I see nothing in any rule citing that all effects from Psychic powers are special rules.

I would say that at this time, this argument is finished.

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I can't believe that people have been arguing for 13 pages about this. You can't stack identical powers, its written right there in the rulebook in black and white!

Samurai_Eduh wrote:
I can't believe that people have been arguing for 13 pages about this. You can't stack identical powers, its written right there in the rulebook in black and white!

See that's a blatant lie.

What it actually says is "different powers are cumulative" which is NOT the same as "same powers are not cumulative. Logically unequal statements.

If you are allowed to eat different fruit for lunch, nothing explicitly forbids you from eating two of the same fruit.

The brb statement is a permissive statement only. There are no statements restricting same powers. The process of expending warp charge and resolving powers inherently allows same powers to stack. Nothing in writing prohibits this.

jeffersonian000 wrote:
My entire argument might be based on a flaw, however, pg. 32 of the BRB, under "What Special Rules do I Have?", 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, suggests otherwise.

"Similarly a model might get special rules as a result of psychic powers ..."

Are you aware of the difference between "might", which is the word used here, and "will always", which is required for your argument to not be flawed?

jeffersonian000 wrote:"When this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic powers ..."

Note that it is not a special rule here; just a rule.

jeffersonian000 wrote:The BRB treats the effects of psychic powers as special rules if the effects bend or change the general rules of the game.

Please define where "+1S" is defined as a special rule. It neither bends nor breaks the rules of the game, so I would avoid using that

jeffersonian000 wrote:I would say that at this time, this argument is finished.

SJ

Again, despite you repeating it I'm not sure you understand what you are saying

 jegsar wrote:
Armor saves do not stack in the game, i asked for something that does. No need to dodge as it doesn't answer my question.

So you didn't even bother to read my post? That's not how you argue a point.

using your stat line is a standard rule

you argue that modiying that stat line is also a standard rule?

again, your ONLY defense for stacking the same power is

"but I can cast the power twice"

and again you equate cast with stack, when there is 0 basis for equating those terms

I can cast shrouding twice, that does NOT mean its benifit stacks with itself. I can put two models in a unit with FC, still wont stack with itself, same with 2 power axes on a model, so why is this one special ability (psychic powers) that bends rules (stat modifying IS bending the normal rule of following stat lines) suddenly not special?

if GW didnt specifically say you could stack fifferent psychic powers, you could not do it, because all powers are an extention of the special rule "psykers" so without permission to stack different powers, you cannot do it because you are using the same special rule benifit. (and again, denying what chapter power resolution rules are in is just silly, it is a special rule chapter)


as has been shown with powers like the shrouding, you cannot cast them over and over and stack the effects.

not to mention all powers that do stack with themselves say in their rule that they can.

again, the side for stacking lacks actual rules to back them up, simply repeating, "I can cast this" does not change the rules to say that stacks.

plenty of rules have been quoted that talk about special rules and pyschic powers, the rules for psychic powers are in a USR chapter, and there is no rule saying you can stack the same power

keep repeating over and over that 1+1=2 and that permission for casting = permission for stacking, it doesnt prove anything

special rules come from all over the game, codex's do not have core rules in them by definition, they have army lists, wargear, and special rules for that army in them.

the onus is on the stacking side to prove:
you are allowed to stack (not cast, stack) the same rule
that powers are NOT special rules

You keep using shrouding as an example when stealth (a special rule granted by shrouding) explicitly doesn't benefit a model more than once.

+1 str is not a special rule. Casting the power is not stacking it. Resolving the psychic power's effect is. You have not resolved the power until the models receive +1 str. You may use the power again and resolve it again. That's +2 str. The process of expending warp charge, rolling leadership, and resolving the power permits this. Over and over again. Nothing prevents this. Permission is granted to any psyker who has warp charge and meets the timing and targeting requirements.

+1STR Is a modifier to a normal rule, it is the benifit of a special rule

you seem to be under the impression that all special rules are in the BRB

or do you contend the +1str from FC/power axe is not a benifit from a special rule?

how can casting powers and resolving them be special rules, yet the benifits of casting/resolving not be benifits of special rules?

you are calling something a special rule when it suits you, and not a special rule when it doesnt.

easysauce wrote:
+1STR Is a modifier to a normal rule, it is the benifit of a special rule

you seem to be under the impression that all special rules are in the BRB

or do you contend the +1str from FC/power axe is not a benifit from a special rule?

how can casting powers and resolving them be special rules, yet the benifits of casting/resolving not be benifits of special rules?

you are calling something a special rule when it suits you, and not a special rule when it doesnt.

The +1 strength from a power axe is a stat modifier, not a special rule, so there is a possibility you don't understand special rules. Many stat modifiers in the game have nothing to do with special rules, and although a special rule may confer them, stat modifiers are not a special rule.

i am not saying +1 str is a special rule, re read what i said

it is the benifit of a special rule


just like you can have preferred enemy (orks)

you have psyker(hammerhand)

easysauce wrote:

or do you contend the +1str from FC/power axe is not a benifit from a special rule?

This was your example. It has nothing to do with a special rule. It is a stat modifier granted by a piece of wargear. A model striking with a power axe also has AP2 attacks, which ignore all armour saves, but that is not a special rule either. Power axes striking at initiative 1, however, IS an example of a special rule because the reason that you strike at initiative 1 is the "unwieldy" special rule.

my example had the benifit of a special rule and wargear on it yes

again, where does it say core rules are in any codex,

codex's have army lists, wargear lists and special rules

where do you think powers fit into that trio?

why is psyker a special rule, but not psyker(hammerhand)?

preferred enemy does not magically stop being a special rule when it is preferred enemy(orks)

easysauce wrote:
why is psyker a special rule, but not psyker(hammerhand)?

Because psyker is listed in the special rules section, and Hammerhand is not, as it is listed as a psychic power and psychic powers are listed in the psychic powers section, not the special rules section.

Psyker is in the special rules section of the book, as Death Reaper pointed out. You could allow a grot to take every psychic power in the book, but grot are not PSYKERS, which is a rule allowing you to use psychic powers. Hammerhand is a power which models are allowed to take a test to use, provided they have the "Psyker" special rule.

Psychic powers are most definitely not special rules, tho some can grant them such as iron arm, endurance, and shrouding.

+1 str is a characteristic modifier not a special rule.

Having a psyker special rule does not make all powers special rules.

If my justicar can use hammerhand and resolve it, and my grand master can do the same if they are in separate units, what rules stops one from being resolved if they are both in the same unit?

the list of USR in the BRB, as stated in the BRB is not an all encompassing list, it specifically states there are more special rules then this in codexes ect

the rules for resolving powers are indeed part of a special rule,


the rules for powers fit the definition of special rule as well since they are 100% abilities that bend/break the rules

Wrong. Just because you must be a psyker does not make everything he does a special rule.

Nothing about hammerhand is labelled as a special rule. Adding +1 str does not bend or break any game rules. The effects of some powers may break or bend the rules (see GoI) this is not one of them.

not everything he does is a special rule,

but everything related to psychic powers is within the special rule psykers, so casting, and resolving are 100% part of a special rule.

resolving powers via the special rule psykers confers benifits,

and adding +anything to a stat line is in fact modifying the rules,

the normal rule is you have the str listed on your profile


a rule found in the codex, is not going to be a core rule, quote where it says basic game rules are listed in the codexes?

easysauce wrote:
the list of USR in the BRB, as stated in the BRB is not an all encompassing list, it specifically states there are more special rules then this in codexes ect

the rules for resolving powers are indeed part of a special rule,


the rules for powers fit the definition of special rule as well since they are 100% abilities that bend/break the rules

Then why aren't Psychic powers in the special rules section?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
Armor saves do not stack in the game, i asked for something that does. No need to dodge as it doesn't answer my question.

So you didn't even bother to read my post? That's not how you argue a point.

You said IF it did not, i understand your point, my point is that everything that does stack is stated. Also it doesn't "Armor saves do not stack" it says you use the best save available to you when you take a wound. there is a difference. In addition this isn't stacking this is cumulative combination of effects.
Back to my point,
1 it's a combination of rules that create multiple modifiers, this is a single rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
How does "+!S" BREAK or BEND a game rule? Show the rule it breaks.

As has been repeatedly shown to you your premise is faulty; it asks for a combination of rules. 2 of the same rule IS a combination of rules

{A,A} is a valid combination, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise

2 of the same rule, it's the same rule. it's two instances of 1 rule. 1 rule. As i demonstrated on page 12 of this thread, 2 of the same rule applied is still 1 rule. (otherwise you would be able to stack special rules)
Also adding +1 strength doesn't change the normal rules of page 2, however HH changes the timing of when you apply the +1 strength bonus therefore bending/breaking the main rules as stated on page 2 and that makes it a special rule based on the following quote.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by special rule.

Two castings of HH are two of the same rules, but applied twice as they have both been cast upon the same unit, thus meeting the criteria for a combination of rules.

two of the same rule is two rules, not one, not sure where you made that up from.

You can not stack thinks like stealth because Stealth says "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." P. 42 Therefore if you have 7 models with the Stealth rule you have a unit that "contains at least one model with this special rule"

No, it is 2 rules. The clue is the fact there is more than 1. More than 1 is a plural. The plural of rule..is "rules"

As you made up and asserted on page 12, and were refuted over and over and over and over.....

How is +1S a special rule? Hammerhand is a psychic power, not a special rule.

Again, you have made an assertion with no actual rules. Provide some, for a change, as per the tenets of the forum.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it is 2 rules. The clue is the fact there is more than 1. More than 1 is a plural. The plural of rule..is "rules"

As you made up and asserted on page 12, and were refuted over and over and over and over.....

How is +1S a special rule? Hammerhand is a psychic power, not a special rule.

Again, you have made an assertion with no actual rules. Provide some, for a change, as per the tenets of the forum.

Nos, try reading next time. I said by changing the timing of the addition of the strength, it breaks/bends the main rules as stated on page 2 under multiple modifiers.

DeathReaper wrote:Two castings of HH are two of the same rules, but applied twice as they have both been cast upon the same unit, thus meeting the criteria for a combination of rules.

two of the same rule is two rules, not one, not sure where you made that up from.

You can not stack thinks like stealth because Stealth says "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..." P. 42 Therefore if you have 7 models with the Stealth rule you have a unit that "contains at least one model with this special rule"

If it's 2 rules, then it's not A rule.
I will re ask the question again.
If i give a model Furious Charge twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?
It's a single rule, applied 2 times. Just because you put it on there twice doesn't split it into 2 rules.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Wrong. Just because you must be a psyker does not make everything he does a special rule.

Nothing about hammerhand is labelled as a special rule. Adding +1 str does not bend or break any game rules. The effects of some powers may break or bend the rules (see GoI) this is not one of them.

Actually, it does. Per pg. 32 of the BRB, any effect that changes or bends the general rules in the BRB are considered special rules. What makes Hammerhand a special rule is that:

A) it is a rule in a codex, not the BRB, as stated on pg. 32
B) provides a modifier to a standard stat line, which is a change (modifier) to an existing rule (stat line)
C) the BRB tells us that effects from psychic powers are SPECIAL RULES on pg. 32.

In addition, pg. 68 of the BRB gives us specific permission to stack benefits from "different" powers. This permission is required because all psychic powers are SPECIAL RULES as stated on pg. 32, where it specifically states that benefits from the same special rule do not stack. Every single psychic powered entry contains the special rules relating to that specific power including when the power may be used (bending), what effects are generated upon a successful activation (changing), and if possible whether or not the power stacks with another power and/or itself (bending). Might of Titan on pg. 25 of the GK codex informs us that it stacks with Hammerhand. Hammerhand on the same page makes no mention of being cumulative with multiple castings.

The burden of proof is on the "Stackers", not the "Non-Stackers", because the BRB specifically tells us that same benefits do not stack unless otherwise noted. Multiple castings of Hammerhand on the same unit is "same benefits" and therefore do not stack because the BRB tells us so while the rules for Hammerhand do not state otherwise. However, Might of Titan and Hammer do stack because the GK codex gives specific permission for those to powers to stack despite both providing identical benefits (a +1 bonus to Strength)

SJ

Jegsar - "rules" is plural. Does 2 of something make it a plural?

Answer yes or no.

Yes, if you have 2 rules. HH is A rule.
now answer me this, does changing the timing of then you apply +1 strength bend or break the normal game rules?

Oh where to start.....

jeffersonian000 wrote:
A) it is a rule in a codex, not the BRB, as stated on pg. 32

Not all rules in codexes are special rules. Prove otherwise

jeffersonian000 wrote:B) provides a modifier to a standard stat line, which is a change (modifier) to an existing rule (stat line)

A stat line is not a rule. Prove otherwise

jeffersonian000 wrote:C) the BRB tells us that effects from psychic powers are SPECIAL RULES on pg. 32.

And here is the major issue you have. You have been shown repeatedly that that is a lie. As in, you cannot keep on repeating it without knowingly committing a falsehood, because you have been shown the proof of this.

Psychic powers MAY give special rules. MAY. Not "Always". "MIGHT". You cannot cite a rule you have changed.

Perhaps acknowledge your error, or will this be another "vehicles are a member of the unit embarked on them" fallacy again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jegsar wrote:
Yes, if you have 2 rules. HH is A rule.
now answer me this, does changing the timing of then you apply +1 strength bend or break the normal game rules?

No, it is 2 rules. the same rule, twice. That would be rules

Try again.

I'll rephrase, does changing the timing of then you apply +1 strength bend or break the normal game rules?
Yes or no?

I'll repeat: when is something a plural?

When there are multiple, now answer yes or no to my question.

 jegsar wrote:
In addition this isn't stacking this is cumulative combination of effects.

Stacking=cumulative combination of effects. That's the very definition of stacking.

 jegsar wrote:
When there are multiple, now answer yes or no to my question.

And 2 of the same rule is a multiple, meaning you have RuleS in play

The whole of Hammerhand is not a special rule. The second part of hammerhand, whcih alters the rules on page 2, is. +1S isnt.

So, you have now confirmed you can stack the +1S, but only get the "before multipliers" rule once - which is all you need

Thanks for proving our argument, you can stop now!

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
When there are multiple, now answer yes or no to my question.

And 2 of the same rule is a multiple, meaning you have RuleS in play

The whole of Hammerhand is not a special rule. The second part of hammerhand, whcih alters the rules on page 2, is. +1S isnt.

So, you have now confirmed you can stack the +1S, but only get the "before multipliers" rule once - which is all you need

Thanks for proving our argument, you can stop now!

so now only parts of special rules are special rules? other parts of special rules are not?

who gave you authority to cherry pick what is special and what is not?

by definition, the rules state you are at STR= to your stat line, you can modify that rule with a special one,

+str and applying the modifier before everything else is all the benefit of the same special rule, which by RAW cannot be stacked with itself

LOL,

HH modifies the timing and therefore it is a special rule. You cannot benefits from a special rule more then once. =1 strength is part of that special rule, therefore you cannot gain it more then once.

2 of the same rule is still A rule, not multiple rules. it's multiple applications/instanced/time applied of that singular rule.

Except two of the same rule is a multiple, meaning you have RuleS in play...

It is 1 rule, that is being used twice, doesn't matter for the purpose of this argument since HH is a special rule (no disputes on changing the timing yet) and you cannot gain it's benefits more then once.

No Hammerhand is a psychic power. Or are you going to say that Witchfire powers are special rules as well?

1 rules used by two different psykers is multiple (of the same) rule, AKA Rules.

Therefore they can both effect the unit.

Psychic powers are not "Special rules" because if they were they would be in the special rules section.

Anything that modifies the normal rules is represented by a special rule, as per page 32, HH changes the order in which multiple modifiers are applied, that changes the rules, therefore it is a special rule.

No it is the same rule used twice. Therefore 1 rule applied twice. If you trespass on two properties, are you charged with breaking two laws, or changed on 2 counts of 1 law being broken? You have 1 rule being applied/casted/used twice.

BGB:
"We're talking about special rules so early because many of the
other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for
troop types) are tied into the special rules given here."

The parenthetical from this statement tells us specifically that the rules for troop types are not special rules.

TURBO-BOOST
Bikes and letbikes cannot Run, but
can make a special Turbo-boost move,
instead of firing in their Shooting phase.
Turbo-boosting Bikes move up to 12",
turbo-boosting Jetbikes move up to 24" .
Controlling their Bikes at such speeds
takes all the riders' concentration and
skill, however. Bikes and letbikes
therefore cannot shoot, charge or
execute any other voluntary action for
the rest of the turn after Turbo-boosting.

Here is an example of a unit type rule that changes or breaks the normal game rules but is not a special rule (because we're told it's not).

ARMOURED STEED
Bike and Jetbike riders benefit from the
protection offered by their bike, which
increases their Toughness characteristic
by I . If the Bike or Jetbike is part of the
model's standard wargear, this bonus is
already included on its profile.

And here is an example of a unit type rule that IS a characteristic modifier that increases a characteristic even when wargear bonuses are not applicable (and, again, is not a special rule, as is explicitly stated in the special rules section).

In addition, using the very codex this issue comes from, Psychic Powers are listed as separate entities from Special Rules. Each has their own heading in equivalent typeset.

Finally, where the special rules section talks about bending and breaking the normal rules, the section specifically says that "abilities" are the things that do so. Powers (or more specifically, psychic powers) are not abilities.

That said, I am still not convinced that Hammerhand stacks. I just wanted to point out some flaws in reasoning and advance what has become a somewhat stagnant dicussion.

the quality or state of being able ... especially : physical, mental, or legal power to perform.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

I put forth that Turbo-boost is a main game rule, and so is armored steed. Another main game rule is "Multiple Modifiers" that gets changed when HH (not in the main rulebook) is applied.

The model gains the ability to apply the modifier before others, therefore changing the main game rules which is represented by a special rule called Hammerhand.

Also notice is says "in this tome" , HH is not in this tome so that sentence is not speaking about HH.

Last powers are a benefit from a special rule as stated before, therefore they are tied to special rules more then most, Powers are covered under the rule started on page 66...

A model with this special rule is a
Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in
full detail in their own section starting
on page 66

Therefore the full rules for this special rule start on page 66, which are the basic rules for all powers.

I put forth another question to prove that psychic powers are indeed special rules... Is Eldritch Storm a special rule?

No. It's a Psychic Shooting Attack. Just like Smite, Mind War, Jaws of the World Wolf, Blood Lance, etc.

 Happyjew wrote:
No. It's a Psychic Shooting Attack. Just like Smite, Mind War, Jaws of the World Wolf, Blood Lance, etc.

Eldar Codex page 26:

SPECIAL RULES
Fleet of Foot, Independent Character.
Psychic Powers: A Farseer is a psyker and must
choose between 1 and 4 Farseer psychic powers.
A Farseer can use a single psychic power per turn.

Psychic powers is a subsection of the SPECIAL RULES section in the Farseer Entry.

So yes, it's a special rule, that is a psychic shooting attack, just like everything you listed.

Tied to != the same as.

My point has nothing to do with the fact that the rules come from the rulebook, but that they are rules that are explicitly NOT special rules that bend and break the rules, therefore negating the premise you have been using to say that any ability that bends or breaks the rules is a special rule.

Where in the rules does it say that powers are a benefit of a special rule? Support your argument with citations, please.

The rules for psykers are not the same rules, or even the same types of rules, for psychic powers. The daemon special rule is not the same thing as a daemonic mark or the powers it provides.

Having the psyker special rule unlocks psychic powers (a main game rule, if you will). That doesn't mean that psychic powers are special rules, it merely means that access to them is gained through a special rule.

For example, a Chaos sorcerer that becomes a spawn still has his psychic powers, but cannot use them because he lost the psyker special rule.

To further illustrate my point, note how in the very codex that contains hammerhand lists psychic powers as an entirely separate entity from special rules not only in each unit profile, but also in every unit in the army list that has either the psyker or psychic pilot special rule.

My point is that your current argument does not stand up to scrutiny, so you should find a better one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jegsar wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No. It's a Psychic Shooting Attack. Just like Smite, Mind War, Jaws of the World Wolf, Blood Lance, etc.

Eldar Codex page 26:

SPECIAL RULES
Fleet of Foot, Independent Character.
Psychic Powers: A Farseer is a psyker and must
choose between 1 and 4 Farseer psychic powers.
A Farseer can use a single psychic power per turn.

Psychic powers is a subsection of the SPECIAL RULES section in the Farseer Entry.

So yes, it's a special rule, that is a psychic shooting attack, just like everything you listed.

From the Eldar FAQ, under amendments:

Page 26 – Farseer, Psychic Powers.
Replace this entry with: “A Farseer is a Psyker (Mastery Level 1)
who must purchase between one and four of the Farseer
psychic powers as detailed on page 60 of Codex: Eldar.”

You have spent a lot of time in this thread describing how 4 does not equal 6. Well, I'm here to tell you, 4th edition is different than 6th edition.

Good thing they updated it though, otherwise someone might have misquoted an antiquated rule.

 jegsar wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No. It's a Psychic Shooting Attack. Just like Smite, Mind War, Jaws of the World Wolf, Blood Lance, etc.

Eldar Codex page 26:

SPECIAL RULES
Fleet of Foot, Independent Character.
Psychic Powers: A Farseer is a psyker and must
choose between 1 and 4 Farseer psychic powers.
A Farseer can use a single psychic power per turn.

Psychic powers is a subsection of the SPECIAL RULES section in the Farseer Entry.

So yes, it's a special rule, that is a psychic shooting attack, just like everything you listed.

Fair enough. Let's look at a more modern (as in 5th or 6th ed) codex.
Let's see
Blood Angels - I don't see Blood Lance under the special rules for Librarian
Chaos Space Marines, Sorcerer, Special Rules "Champion of Chaos, Independent Character, Psyker (Mastery Level 1)" Nope, no mention of psychic powers.
Dark Angels, Librarian, Special Rules "Inner Circle, Independent Character, Psyker (Mastery Level 1)" Nope, no mention of psychic powers there either.
Lets try one more, how about Tyranids?
...
Zoanthropes - Special Rules "Synapse Creature, Psyker, Shadow in the Warp, Warp Field". Nope nothing about Warp Blast/Warp Lance...oh sorry, I see them now. They are listed under Psychic Powers.

Psyker is a special rule (i hope we agree on that statement).

Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66

Does this not mean the rules for the special rule psyker are covered in full detail starting on page 66? labeled "PSYKERS".
Can we agree on these two points so far?

Psyker is a special rule. On that I agree. All that having the Psyker special rule does it makes the model a Psyker and allows it to make use of the rules presented in the section starting on pg 66.

jesgar, if your interpretation were correct you'd never be able to cast the same psychic power more than once per game per psyker, because you'd then be benefiting from the same special rule (psyker) more than once.

So all of it is a benefit from the psyker special rule?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I agree, RAW, you cannot not. A mistake like many others in the writing of GW rules.

Being able to cast psychic powers is a benefit of the Psyker rules (which having the Psyker special rule makes you). The psychic powers themselves are not benefits of the rule nor are they special rules.

However if a melta shots 2 different tanks across 2 turns, does it get 2d6 armor pen on both?

In fact it is possible to have psychic powers without being a Psyker at all. It's also possible to be a Psyker and not have any powers.

And the rules for psykers (a special rule) are covered starting on page 66. The reason it isn't in the special rules section is because the amount of rules do not fit there, it makes more sense to put it after for readability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yes, by having another special rule such as the brotherhood of psykers.

 jegsar wrote:
So all of it is a benefit from the psyker special rule?

Let's assume this were the case. Let's take Null Zone for our example:

Turn 1, our Librarian casts Null Zone. It forces the enemy Daemon models in range to reroll their Invulnerable saves. This is obviously a benefit to us.

Turn 2, our Librarian casts Null Zone. It forces the enemy Daemon models in range to reroll their Invulnerable saves. This is obviously a benefit to us. Oops, we've benefitted from the same Special Rule twice, which according to you isn't allowed, as you're apparently not allowed to benefit from the same special rule more than once.

Challenges by RAW used to use the majority toughness... yes they did faq this but is proves very obvious wording errors are possible. Here is this wording error proved incorrect. A melta gun with the melta special rule shoot a tank on turn two, it rolls 2d6 for armor pen, What does it roll when it scores a gak on turn 3? We play it rolls 2d6 even though that is benefiting a second time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and HH still modifies the main rules on page two and is not even in the main "tome" it is not a main rule however it is a special rule based on the rule that states modifications on a main rule are represented by a special rule. I don't care if you call the special rule psyker or HH, a model cannot benefit from it more then once.

 jegsar wrote:
Challenges by RAW used to use the majority toughness... yes they did faq this but is proves very obvious wording errors are possible. Here is this wording error proved incorrect. A melta gun with the melta special rule shoot a tank on turn two, it rolls 2d6 for armor pen, What does it roll when it scores a gak on turn 3? We play it rolls 2d6 even though that is benefiting a second time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and HH still modifies the main rules on page two and is not even in the main "tome" it is not a main rule however it is a special rule based on the rule that states modifications on a main rule are represented by a special rule. I don't care if you call the special rule psyker or HH, a model cannot benefit from it more then once.

Then something with melta or armourbane only gets it the first time. You can only use FNP on the first unsaved Wound you suffer. Legion of the Damned can only make one saving throw for the entire game. Zoanthropes only get a 3+ Invulnerable save once per game...

RAW i agree. Now just like we play it that the Doom can actually kill models and challenges only used the models toughness, how should that sentence read? I read it as the effects from the same special rule are not cumulative, as to use the same wording from the following sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh where to start.....

jeffersonian000 wrote:
A) it is a rule in a codex, not the BRB, as stated on pg. 32

Not all rules in codexes are special rules. Prove otherwise

Pg. 32, BRB, under “What Special Rules Do I Have?”, 2nd thru 4th paragraphs:
“Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
“Where this is the case, the rules that govern the psychic powers, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
“Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.”

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:B) provides a modifier to a standard stat line, which is a change (modifier) to an existing rule (stat line)

A stat line is not a rule. Prove otherwise

Pg. 2, BRB, under “Models & Units, 1st and 2nd paragraphs:
“The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.”
“Warhammer 40,000 uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.”
Pg. 3, BRB, under “Characteristic Profiles”, 1st paragraph:
“Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile the lists the values of its characteristics”

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:C) the BRB tells us that effects from psychic powers are SPECIAL RULES on pg. 32.

And here is the major issue you have. You have been shown repeatedly that that is a lie. As in, you cannot keep on repeating it without knowingly committing a falsehood, because you have been shown the proof of this.
Psychic powers MAY give special rules. MAY. Not "Always". "MIGHT". You cannot cite a rule you have changed.
Perhaps acknowledge your error, or will this be another "vehicles are a member of the unit embarked on them" fallacy again?

Pg. 41, BRB, 1st entry:
“PSYKER
A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66.”
Pg. 66, BRB, 1st entry:
“Psykers are warriors gifted with awesome mental powers that enable them to channel the baleful energy of the Warp. While commonly referred to as psychic powers, such abilities are nothing less than sorcery …”
Pg. 66, BRB, under “Psykers”, 2nd paragraph:
“Each Psyker knows one or more psychic powers, as described in their codex.”
Pg. 22, GK Codex, under “Grey Knight Grand Masters”
“SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, And They Shall Know No Fear, Independent Character, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Psyker (Mastery Level 1).”
“PSYCHIC POWERS: Hammerhand (see page 25), Psychic Communion (see page 23)”

Pg. 23, GK Codex, under “Grey Knight Brother-Captains”
“SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, And They Shall Know No Fear, Independent Character, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Psyker (Mastery Level 1).”
“PSYCHIC POWERS: Hammerhand (see page 25)”
Pg. 24, GK Codex, under “Librarians”
“SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, And They Shall Know No Fear, Independent Character, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Psyker (Mastery Level 2).”
“PSYCHIC POWERS: Hammerhand (see opposite)”

While it pains me to post rules on the site, it seems to be the only way to “prove” to some posters on this forum something they can very well read on their own if they weren’t being so obtuse to challenge every single thing their opposition posts.
To restate:
A) All rules in a Codex are special rules, because they change or bend the rules in the BRB, as stated on pg. 32 of the BRB.
B) Stat Lines, the common term for Characteristic Profiles, are indeed rules, as stated on pg. 3 of the BRB.
C) Every rule in the Psyker section of the BRB is a special rule per the special rule entry “Psyker” on pg 41 of the BRB.
D) As such, we can plainly see in many unit entries of the GK Codex where Psyker is listed under Special Rules, and the powers those units have access to are listed under Psychic Powers, not the mention the characteristic profile listed at the beginning of each unit’s rules.
Calling me a liar doesn’t change the fact that the “Stacker” argument is based on 5th Edition FAQ and not on a single entry in the 6th Edition BRB.

As to fallacies, please prove that a unit embarked on a vehicle does not accompany said vehicle … in a different thread from this one.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Oh where to start.....

jeffersonian000 wrote:
A) it is a rule in a codex, not the BRB, as stated on pg. 32

Not all rules in codexes are special rules. Prove otherwise

Pg. 32, BRB, under “What Special Rules Do I Have?”, 2nd thru 4th paragraphs:
“Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
“Where this is the case, the rules that govern the psychic powers, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear.
“Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.”

This fails to prove that all codex rules are Special Rules.
In fact it show that Psychic Powers are not Special Rules, but sometimes might grant them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:B) provides a modifier to a standard stat line, which is a change (modifier) to an existing rule (stat line)

A stat line is not a rule. Prove otherwise

Pg. 2, BRB, under “Models & Units, 1st and 2nd paragraphs:
“The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.”
“Warhammer 40,000 uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.”
Pg. 3, BRB, under “Characteristic Profiles”, 1st paragraph:
“Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile the lists the values of its characteristics”

This doesn't prove it.
In any event, modifiers don't bend rules but follow them. We are told a model has stats, we are told the values can be changed and we're shown how to do it. No rules bent or broken.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:C) the BRB tells us that effects from psychic powers are SPECIAL RULES on pg. 32.

And here is the major issue you have. You have been shown repeatedly that that is a lie. As in, you cannot keep on repeating it without knowingly committing a falsehood, because you have been shown the proof of this.
Psychic powers MAY give special rules. MAY. Not "Always". "MIGHT". You cannot cite a rule you have changed.
Perhaps acknowledge your error, or will this be another "vehicles are a member of the unit embarked on them" fallacy again?

Pg. 41, BRB, 1st entry:
“PSYKER
A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66.”
Pg. 66, BRB, 1st entry:
“Psykers are warriors gifted with awesome mental powers that enable them to channel the baleful energy of the Warp. While commonly referred to as psychic powers, such abilities are nothing less than sorcery …”
Pg. 66, BRB, under “Psykers”, 2nd paragraph:
“Each Psyker knows one or more psychic powers, as described in their codex.”
Pg. 22, GK Codex, under “Grey Knight Grand Masters”
“SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, And They Shall Know No Fear, Independent Character, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Psyker (Mastery Level 1).”
“PSYCHIC POWERS: Hammerhand (see page 25), Psychic Communion (see page 23)”

Pg. 23, GK Codex, under “Grey Knight Brother-Captains”
“SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, And They Shall Know No Fear, Independent Character, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Psyker (Mastery Level 1).”
“PSYCHIC POWERS: Hammerhand (see page 25)”
Pg. 24, GK Codex, under “Librarians”
“SPECIAL RULES: The Aegis, And They Shall Know No Fear, Independent Character, Preferred Enemy (Daemons), Psyker (Mastery Level 2).”
“PSYCHIC POWERS: Hammerhand (see opposite)”

Nothing here proves the effects of Psychic Powers are Special Rules. In fact the rule posed earlier proves they are not, but on occasion can grant them.

While it pains me to post rules on the site, it seems to be the only way to “prove” to some posters on this forum something they can very well read on their own if they weren’t being so obtuse to challenge every single thing their opposition posts.
To restate:
A) All rules in a Codex are special rules, because they change or bend the rules in the BRB, as stated on pg. 32 of the BRB.
B) Stat Lines, the common term for Characteristic Profiles, are indeed rules, as stated on pg. 3 of the BRB.
C) Every rule in the Psyker section of the BRB is a special rule per the special rule entry “Psyker” on pg 41 of the BRB.
D) As such, we can plainly see in many unit entries of the GK Codex where Psyker is listed under Special Rules, and the powers those units have access to are listed under Psychic Powers, not the mention the characteristic profile listed at the beginning of each unit’s rules.
Calling me a liar doesn’t change the fact that the “Stacker” argument is based on 5th Edition FAQ and not on a single entry in the 6th Edition BRB.

As to fallacies, please prove that a unit embarked on a vehicle does not accompany said vehicle … in a different thread from this one.

SJ

A) False. The BRB repeated tells us to look to the Codex. That is a rule. Only Special Rules within the Codex bend core rules. Not everything in the Codex does this.
B) The rule governing Characteristics is. The values are not. They can be modified following standard rules without bending or breaking them.
C) Powers are not in the Psyker section, and it has been prove time and time again that they are not Special Rules.
D) No powers were listed as Special Rules in any of the quotes posted. Psyker is a Special Rule, Powers are not. This has been shown many, many times.

 grendel083 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

jeffersonian000 wrote:B) provides a modifier to a standard stat line, which is a change (modifier) to an existing rule (stat line)

A stat line is not a rule. Prove otherwise

Pg. 2, BRB, under “Models & Units, 1st and 2nd paragraphs:
“The Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.”
“Warhammer 40,000 uses nine different characteristics to describe the various attributes of the different models.”
Pg. 3, BRB, under “Characteristic Profiles”, 1st paragraph:
“Every model in Warhammer 40,000 has a profile the lists the values of its characteristics”

This doesn't prove it.
In any event, modifiers don't bend rules but follow them. We are told a model has stats, we are told the values can be changed and we're shown how to do it. No rules bent or broken.

Hammerhand does bend the rule.

The rules say multiply first, add second.

Hammerhand says add 1 first, then multiply (if able to) then add again (if there is anything else)

I will only quote one part of your wall of text, because others have dissected it well. Thi sis just the most pertinent but from me.

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Pg. 32, BRB, under “What Special Rules Do I Have?”, 2nd thru 4th paragraphs:
“Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.

The entire post is undermined here, where you managfed to NOT read what you just typed in.

It may PAIN you to quote rules, but it pains us more when you type something which entirely undermines your point, and it is the thing I told you about.

You see the word MIGHT there? I underlined, stuck it in bold because apparently despite me stating this is what it said, you still missed it

This means it MIGHT give you a special rule. This does NOT say it DOES give you a special rule

NOTHING you posted proves anything other than *psyker* is the special rule. Literally nothing. Your entire wall of text, agrieved tone and all simply proved you were wrong.

Enough, reread this single quote from you, realise your error and stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jegsar - seriously, you are still trying to argue that a plural isnt a plural. Stop.

2 of the same rule means you have RULES. Nothing you state will give otherwise

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


Hammerhand does bend the rule.

The rules say multiply first, add second.

Hammerhand says add 1 first, then multiply (if able to) then add again (if there is anything else)

Hammerhand grants one special rule. That does not mean that it is a special rule.
The special rule of changing the order of operations does not stack.
The STR modifier is not a special rule as page 2 spells out how modifiers work - no rules are bent or broken.

Per the YMDC tenets, if you wish to refute my post, you need to cite rules rather than simply saying "you are wrong".

Please cite the specific rules to refute the rules I cited above.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per the YMDC tenets, if you wish to refute my post, you need to cite rules rather than simply saying "you are wrong".

Please cite the specific rules to refute the rules I cited above.

SJ

Refuting a flawed reading of the rules doesn't require a counter-rule, because if that were the case my Terminators are S10 I10 T10, show me where it says they aren't.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per the YMDC tenets, if you wish to refute my post, you need to cite rules rather than simply saying "you are wrong".

Please cite the specific rules to refute the rules I cited above.

SJ

I already did. The word "MIGHT". The one you are ignoring.

I presume you understand the difference, in English, between what yo are claiming "MIGHT" means, and what it actually does mean?

Essentially you changed the meaning of the word "might" to mean something other than what it actually means, and then ask me to show a rule saying that? Amusing.

so might, doesnt mena might either?

four things might cause special rules in that section of BRB,

you now argue what that might means "doesnt"

as well as cast means stack?

your arguement for stacking has moved all over the place,

first it was "codex GK specifically says in HH special rule it stacks with itself" when it doesnt,

then its "permission to cast = permission to be cumulative" also not true

now despite haveing the rules in the BRB spelled out for you where it talks about special rules and psychic powers, you again, simply say "you're wrong" and quote no rules to back your theory up.

we have quoted pages of pertinent rules, none of which are disputed by the special rulespg66-69 allowing powers to be cast

in fact because psykers is a special rule, and powers only used via this special rule,

that is why GW has to give you permission to stack different powers, used via this special rule(regardless of if the powers are special rules or not, even though they are apecial rules) you are using multiples of the special rule "psyker" to cast powers, so they had to give permission to stack multiple different powers

again, 0 rules quoted from the stack side,

because there is no rule allowing cumulative identical powers

claiming that the codex GK has core game rules in it, is just silly, the BRB has a section on rules, the codex does not, you cannot play a game of 40k with codexes, you need the BRB

He isn't arguing that "might" means "doesn't", he's telling you to stop treating "might" as though it's definitive. It isn't. Stop pretending it is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
He isn't arguing that "might" means "doesn't", he's telling you to stop treating "might" as though it's definitive. It isn't. Stop pretending it is.

Im assuming Easysauce, who is on ignore, posted something that managed to yet again miss the rules?

Might != always does. Therefore the correct way to read the sentence is that a psychic power CAN bestow special rules, but it is not certain that it will do so.

There is no definitive requirement in the sentence. Which the "no stack" side seem absolutely incapable of understanding. Basic English.

might means something might do something, your character might hit something when it shoots, does that mean its not rolling to hit just because it might miss?



stop pretending like USR section does not contain the special rules for resolving psychic powers, or talk about psychic powers resulting in special rules at all.

stop pretending that the codex GK has core 40k rules in it,

stop pretending that the brb says "identical powers stack"


again, you have 0 quotes showing permission to make identical powers cumulative.

easysauce wrote:
might means something might do something, your character might hit something when it shoots, does that mean its not rolling to hit just because it might miss?

That's a completely nonsensical comparison; the sentence "A psychic power might bestow a Special Rule upon its target" means that it is possible, but not certain, that the psychic power will bestow a Special Rule upon its target. In your example the state of being a Special Rule would be getting a hit, not rolling to hit.

easysauce wrote:

stop pretending like USR section does not contain the special rules for resolving psychic powers, or talk about psychic powers resulting in special rules at all.

Oh, that's too bad, because that's not true. That's under the chapter "psykers" starting on page 66, not the chapter "special rules" starting on page 32.

easysauce wrote:

stop pretending that the brb says "identical powers stack"

We've never said that it does, and have explained an umptillion times why that's not needed.

easysauce wrote:

stop pretending that the codex GK has core 40k rules in it,

"Eacn Psyker knows one or more psychic powers, as detailed in their codex". I.e. "instead of uswriting down everything here, check the Codices". Still being referenced as part of the core rules.

easysauce wrote:
so might, doesnt mena might either?


four things might cause special rules in that section of BRB,

you now argue what that might means "doesnt"

Cite one time someone has claimed that or admit you are trolling with this comment.

first it was "codex GK specifically says in HH special rule it stacks with itself" when it doesnt,

I believe I was the first to claim that and no one else did after I was corrected.

then its "permission to cast = permission to be cumulative" also not true

An incorrect simplification of the argument - so no, that was never the stance.

now despite haveing the rules in the BRB spelled out for you where it talks about special rules and psychic powers, you again, simply say "you're wrong" and quote no rules to back your theory up.

That's a lie, quotes have been posted.

we have quoted pages of pertinent rules, none of which are disputed by the special rulespg66-69 allowing powers to be cast

in fact because psykers is a special rule, and powers only used via this special rule,

And you've shown absolutely zero support for inheritance, even though it doesn't matter.

again, 0 rules quoted from the stack side,

This is a lie.

because there is no rule allowing cumulative identical powers

This displays a misunderstanding of how rules work.

claiming that the codex GK has core game rules in it, is just silly, the BRB has a section on rules, the codex does not, you cannot play a game of 40k with codexes, you need the BRB

What? What is this referring to? You can't play a game of 40k without codexes so...

Hammerhand is a psychic power, not a special rule. We know this because "might" does not mean "this is an exhaustive list" and the power is not listed to be a special rule.
The stacking order change of Hammerhand is a special rule and has no exception from the stacking limits. This does not stack (not that it could anyhow).
The modifier fits the page 2 definition of a modifier and does not change rules, therefore it is not a special rule. There is no rule saying it does not stack and since the power is permitted to be cast twice on the same unit, it must stack.

I think, by now, we are so far past repeating ourselves to no avail, despite referencing the precise rules allowing stacking, shooting down every single argument raised against it in multiple ways - a bewildering number of which seek to entirely alter the wording int he rule book such as "might" and pretending it means "always does" , for one stunningly simple example - that continuing is just lending the anti- arguments some credence

Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition. The strongest argument presented so far by the "Stackers" is that the "Non-Stacker" argument is "flawed", yet no actual proof has been presented by the "Stackers" to demonstrate what that "flaw" is. "Stackers" have nit-picked wording, called "Non-Stackers" liars, and presented a weak argument that "permission to cast = permission to stack" which is in no way supported by the current rules as written. In fact, "Stackers" have failed to provide an argument fully backed by the rules as written to support their side over the course of 16 pages of thread.

My recommendation to the "Stackers" is to put the dictionary down and actually read the BRB. Please.

My recommendation to the Forum moderators to lock this thread down, as it contains 14 pages of circular arguing with only one side of the argument following the Forum's tenets. Please.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition.

If you actually read the thread you will know that the information you provided is incorrect.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition. The strongest argument presented so far by the "Stackers" is that the "Non-Stacker" argument is "flawed", yet no actual proof has been presented by the "Stackers" to demonstrate what that "flaw" is. "Stackers" have nit-picked wording, called "Non-Stackers" liars, and presented a weak argument that "permission to cast = permission to stack" which is in no way supported by the current rules as written. In fact, "Stackers" have failed to provide an argument fully backed by the rules as written to support their side over the course of 16 pages of thread.

My recommendation to the "Stackers" is to put the dictionary down and actually read the BRB. Please.

My recommendation to the Forum moderators to lock this thread down, as it contains 14 pages of circular arguing with only one side of the argument following the Forum's tenets. Please.

SJ

Pointing out flaws in an argument is not "nitpicking", it's pointing out an error that makes the whole argument null. And for the record, inventing new, creative interpretations of the word "might" IS lying. I agree about the lock request and only one side following the tenets, but considering your side seemingly hasn't grasped how a permissive rule set works it's not the side you seem to think that's breaking the rules.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition. The strongest argument presented so far by the "Stackers" is that the "Non-Stacker" argument is "flawed", yet no actual proof has been presented by the "Stackers" to demonstrate what that "flaw" is. "Stackers" have nit-picked wording, called "Non-Stackers" liars, and presented a weak argument that "permission to cast = permission to stack" which is in no way supported by the current rules as written. In fact, "Stackers" have failed to provide an argument fully backed by the rules as written to support their side over the course of 16 pages of thread.

My recommendation to the "Stackers" is to put the dictionary down and actually read the BRB. Please.

My recommendation to the Forum moderators to lock this thread down, as it contains 14 pages of circular arguing with only one side of the argument following the Forum's tenets. Please.

SJ

Given you have repeatedly lied about hte meaning of the word "might", your stance is as flawed as your argument

You can call me a liar all you want Nos, but until you actually bother to prove that same psychic powers are cumulative, your side has no argument. None.

And as to pointing out errors in an argument nullifies the argument, please review the YMDC Tenets on posting counter arguments. Telling someone "they are wrong" does not equal "you are correct". The Non-Stackers have cited repeatedly the chain of logic supporting their position, while the Stackers have only attacked the Non-Stackers’ posts. If you are unwilling to cite rules to support your chain of logic, then you’re conceding the point to the Non-Stackers.

It does not matter how many times you point out what you think are flaws in the Non-Stacker argument, if you never bother to post your own side of the argument. If you cannot support your side of the argument by citing actual rules as written, then you have no argument.

As I've posted before, I would challenge the Stackers to prove their side if they can; it’s unfortunate that the rules do not support your position, which is why your side has fallen to calling people liars and trying to stall over the common meanings of specific words that in the end you won't except anyway.

We are at the point where the Stackers need to fish or cut bait. I await your rules based chain of logic that supports same psychic powers being cumulative. Or your simply conceding the point as you have no rules based proof of your argument. The gauntlet is has been thrown.

SJ

Incorrect

We demonstrated our support early on. I assume you didnt read those parts of the thread? Perhaps you could do everyoen some courtesy by reviewing it, so you can see the specific points raised? Thanks,

Your argument hangs on the premise that a psychic power always gives a special rule. However, sadly for you, this is only true when you lie and change the meaning of the word "Might" to mean "always does do", or some other more definitive statement. Despite this being poointed out a number of times, you are still clinging to this as your central point.

The chain of logic you present has been fatally undermined pretty much every step along the way, and successfully attacked. You have no counterargument to the facts we presented.

thank you for you concession, again, on this topic. Good day

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you are unwilling to cite rules to support your chain of logic, then you’re conceding the point to the Non-Stackers.

I've cited rules.

If you cannot support your side of the argument by citing actual rules as written, then you have no argument.

I've cited rules.

As I've posted before, I would challenge the Stackers to prove their side if they can; it’s unfortunate that the rules do not support your position, which is why your side has fallen to calling people liars and trying to stall over the common meanings of specific words that in the end you won't except anyway.

I've cited rules. And it's "accept" not "except". And nothing I've cited requires debating the common meaning of a word.

We are at the point where the Stackers need to fish or cut bait. I await your rules based chain of logic that supports same psychic powers being cumulative. Or your simply conceding the point as you have no rules based proof of your argument. The gauntlet is has been thrown.

I've cited rules. The fact that you seem to continuously ignore my posts is not my problem, but please do not lie and say that no one has cited rules.

I'd call it a huge stretch when you say a Psychic power is a SR. So it's a SR of a SR? That breaks the game based on only models and weapons have special rules...When you have to straight up make things up, I'd say you've already lost and your just hoping that if you yell loud enough at the opposition, they'll throw up their hands and leave; leaving you to think you somehow "won".

RAW, modifiers stack, Hammerhand gives a MODIFIER, so it stacks, assuming its from two different sources (psykers).

RAI, I think the sentence on granting different powers the ability to stack unless stated is a good indicator that same powers HH+HH for example, are not meant to stack, but until it's faq'd, its RAW they do. Because hey, S7 I6 tactical marines with S7 AP4 rending guns is Totally balanced amiright!?...and people complain about crons...

overlordweasel wrote:

RAI, I think the sentence on granting different powers the ability to stack unless stated is a good indicator that same powers HH+HH for example, are not meant to stack, but until it's faq'd, its RAW they do. Because hey, S7 I6 tactical marines with S7 AP4 rending guns is Totally balanced amiright!?...and people complain about crons...

You can't carry both a psycannon and a halberd unless you are a termie. You take that gun and you're left with the blunt end of it as a melee weapon.

Not to mention that even if your imaginary unit was possible, it would require both your HQ choices to stand in it. It just sounds silly when you make it sound like this is some kind of standard choice the other army has, when in fact it is first of all not tac marines, and second would require you to build your whole army around that unit.

You can't carry both a psycannon and a halberd unless you are a termie. You take that gun and you're left with the blunt end of it as a melee weapon.

Not to mention that even if your imaginary unit was possible, it would require both your HQ choices to stand in it. It just sounds silly when you make it sound like this is some kind of standard choice the other army has, when in fact it is first of all not tac marines, and second would require you to build your whole army around that unit.

GK Libby with MotT+HH in a unit of tactical Marines with halberds. Last I checked that's +3 Str, I6, so I didn't clarify that the Psycannon hits in CC arent AP3 or I6? so what, their still I4 and S7, which is STILL MC lvl statline right their on a 20 to what 40? point model. Make em Purifiers and you get an extra psycannon per 5, and now you get CF, basically a HoW SR on steroids. My imaginary unit doesnt even require "a entire list built around it" Its 250 points base no upgrades for a GK libby and a 5 man strike squad. add in upgrades of above and you reach roughly 300 or so....thats pretty cheap and take 2 HQs of the same variety and you have 2 of these for roughly 600 points, thats brely a 1/3rd of a 1500 point list. Add in more bodies/ make me Termies instead and you got yourself a pretty good double deathstar.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You can call me a liar all you want Nos, but until you actually bother to prove that same psychic powers are cumulative, your side has no argument. None.

They have. Multiple times. You just don't seem understand how permissive ruleset works. When blanket permission to do something is given, permission to do it is valid until it is specifically revoked.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And as to pointing out errors in an argument nullifies the argument, please review the YMDC Tenets on posting counter arguments. Telling someone "they are wrong" does not equal "you are correct".

Yes, but it does mean that Non-Stackers are wrong.
And considering that Non-Stackers have been unable to refute the main argument of Stackers, this by default means Stackers are right.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Non-Stackers have cited repeatedly the chain of logic supporting their position, while the Stackers have only attacked the Non-Stackers’ posts.

Non-Stackers posts have been attacked, because their 'chain of logic' is worthless. Every single argument Non-Stackers have used to 'cite' their arguments is either based on having very poor reading comprehension skills, making logical fallacies, using rules interpretations that if used consistently break the game and/or just plain making up rules. And the chain of logic for Stackers have been posted multiple times, so please don't claim it hasn't. Actually very large part of Non-Stackers arguments are attacks against the base of the Stackers so-called 'chain of logic'.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you are unwilling to cite rules to support your chain of logic, then you’re conceding the point to the Non-Stackers.

All the relevant rules have been cited, repeatedly. You just keep ignoring them and people have grown tired of repeating themselves time after time, especially as Non-Stackers haven't been able refute any of them.

Example of why Stacking works. This example has probably been posted at least ten of times in this thread already in one form or another (though according to you has never been posted before).
1. Blanket permission has been given to cast and resolve Psychic power on unit/model.
2. This blanket permissions allows to to cast and resolve Psychic power multiple times on same unit/model.
3. As we have permission to resolve multiple instances of same Psychic power on same unit/model and no rule takes this permission away, Psychic Powers stack.Non-Stackers have not quoted single actual rule that denies this blanket permission. All attempts to do so have lead to laughable results when applied consistently.

Obviously Psychic powers that grant Special rules, like Endurance, are still subject to the "no duplicate Special Rules" restriction. Others, like Iron Arm are partially affected. Stat modifiers are not Special Rules, as has been shown (consistent application of reverse leads to silly and unplayable results), but Eternal Warrior obviously is. So while Psychic power might possibly grant a Special Rule, they often don't.

Luide - there you go with that "might" word again...remember, that means "always does" to a "non-stacker"

overlordweasel wrote:

You can't carry both a psycannon and a halberd unless you are a termie. You take that gun and you're left with the blunt end of it as a melee weapon.

Not to mention that even if your imaginary unit was possible, it would require both your HQ choices to stand in it. It just sounds silly when you make it sound like this is some kind of standard choice the other army has, when in fact it is first of all not tac marines, and second would require you to build your whole army around that unit.

GK Libby with MotT+HH in a unit of tactical Marines with halberds. Last I checked that's +3 Str, I6, so I didn't clarify that the Psycannon hits in CC arent AP3 or I6? so what, their still I4 and S7, which is STILL MC lvl statline right their on a 20 to what 40? point model. Make em Purifiers and you get an extra psycannon per 5, and now you get CF, basically a HoW SR on steroids. My imaginary unit doesnt even require "a entire list built around it" Its 250 points base no upgrades for a GK libby and a 5 man strike squad. add in upgrades of above and you reach roughly 300 or so....thats pretty cheap and take 2 HQs of the same variety and you have 2 of these for roughly 600 points, thats brely a 1/3rd of a 1500 point list. Add in more bodies/ make me Termies instead and you got yourself a pretty good double deathstar.

So if you throw a stormshield on one termie in another army you would then say that was "a unit with 3++ save"?
And you don't think that's sort of just an attempt to make it sound better than it is?

Not to mention that you simply assume that all three casts will go through every time and completely disregard the possibility that you will take wounds yourself from attempting to activate this death star. Losing one of 5 guys is pretty hefty, and taking wounds on your warlord to do it is also quite horrid. Not to mention that as you wanted to do this twice you've built your whole army around these stars again.

I'll agree that what you describe is a unit that none the less is devastating in close combat with a decent shot aswell... but it's 5 space marines. It's hardly hard to shoot them out before they get anywhere. Make it Termies and you can call it a deathstar (and double the cost).

On topic, I do wonder why they just removed it from the FAQ...

are mods looking at this thread? It's pretty much a circular debate here and we're coming up on the 17th page. Obviously not going to end anything soon, so can we have this locked before it devolves into a flaming thread, which I see rapidly approaching.

overlordweasel wrote:
are mods looking at this thread? It's pretty much a circular debate here and we're coming up on the 17th page. Obviously not going to end anything soon, so can we have this locked before it devolves into a flaming thread, which I see rapidly approaching.

I think it already has started burning...

overlordweasel wrote:
I'd call it a huge stretch when you say a Psychic power is a SR. So it's a SR of a SR? That breaks the game based on only models and weapons have special rules...When you have to straight up make things up, I'd say you've already lost and your just hoping that if you yell loud enough at the opposition, they'll throw up their hands and leave; leaving you to think you somehow "won".

RAW, modifiers stack, Hammerhand gives a MODIFIER, so it stacks, assuming its from two different sources (psykers).

RAI, I think the sentence on granting different powers the ability to stack unless stated is a good indicator that same powers HH+HH for example, are not meant to stack, but until it's faq'd, its RAW they do. Because hey, S7 I6 tactical marines with S7 AP4 rending guns is Totally balanced amiright!?...and people complain about crons...

My argument isn't lost because I've stated all psychic powers are special rules. My argument is won because the BRB states under Special Rules that psychic powers can grant special rules. There are several psychic powers that do not grant special rules, such as any psychic power that counts as a shooting attack or a close combat attack. However, any psychic power that bends or changes the rules are in fact granting special rules per the BRB. A psychic power that grants a movement ability has granted a special rule to the unit that benefit from that movement ability. A psychic power that grants a modifier to a unit has granted a special rule to that unit allowing them to benefit from that modifier. A psychic power that grants a change in the sequence of steps in a phase has granted a special rule that changes the sequence of steps in that phase. Argue all you want against that, but the BRB supports psychic powers granting special rules. Hammerhand grants a Strength bonus changing a units Characteristic Profile as well as bending the rules regarding when that modifier comes into play. That is a special rule as defined by the BRB on page 32.

Per RAW, only different modifiers stack, not same modifiers unless otherwise noted. Multiple Rad Grenades on the same assault do not stack, multiple Furious Charge on the same assault do not stack. The very few modifiers that do stack have been given specific permission to do so, such as found in the new Chaos Space Marines codex.

As to RAI, how do you know that it was intended for benefits from same powers to be cumulative when the rule as written states only benefits from different powers are cumulative? Same =/= Different.

I understand that the Stackers position is that Hammerhand casted by a GM is different than Hammerhand casted by a Librarian is different from Hammerhand casted by a unit of Strikers. However, where does it state in any of the rules that Hammerhand cast by one unit is different from Hammerhand cast by another? If the Rad Grenades on my GM do not stack with the Rad Grenades on my Inquisitor, then why would the same GM's Hammerhand stack with the same Inquisitor's Hammerhand? Because you think the two are different? Why is it that the Rad Grenades are different when the Hammerhands are not? Please cite a rule to shows this.

Remember, pg. 32 of the BRB treat benefits gained from several different sources to be special rules, because those benefits bend or charge the basic rules of the game. The BRB even points out Wargear, Psychic Powers, Scenarios, and Terrain as sources of special rules. The 6th Edition FAQ support this in their rulings on same wargear that grant benefits to not be cumulative. Intent appears to be that unless otherwise noted, benefits from the same abilities, be they wargear, psychic powers, scenarios, or terrain are not cumulative. In the Psyker section of the BRB (pg. 68) we have specific permission for the same benefits from different powers to stack; i.e., the +1Str from Hammerhand and the +1Str from Might of Titan are cumulative (the Might of Titan entry on pg. 25 of the GK codex and pg. 68 of the BRB tell us so).

What I want from the Stackers is the same break down I just gave that supports their position. Simply stating "you're wrong", "I've cited rules", or "please re-read the thread" will be taken as admission the Stackers do not in fact have an argument and are conceding.

SJ

Its definitely heated up, and should probably be locked. I'll hit the report button on this post.

I'm sure this'll come up again all too soon. ....