ok i'm new to the 6th edition. was told by my local play group i was able to stack my Psychic powers, Specifically hammerhand.
Situation GK terminators have hammerhand mastery lvl 1. i add in a IC such as Librarian mastery lvl 2/3 with hammerhand and might of titans.
so in the assault phase when these powers can be used i'm able to use each power accordingly, allowing brotherhood of psykers to pass the power used to everyone.
terminaters use their hammerhand for +1 str then the Librarian uses his hammerhand for +1 str then the Librarian uses Might of titans for +1 str
codex states that the might of titans and hammerhand stack
so the real question here is does hammerhands stack? making this +3 str to the unit with IC or is it just +2.
what is the justification for hammer hand stacking? it would be the only power that does stack with itself.
hammer hand can stack with might of titan and other different powers, but no power stacks with itself.
pg 68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Automatically Appended Next Post: enfeeble does not stack with itself either, maledictions and blessings both have the stipulation, written in the rule book, that they are cumulative with different [u]powers
the same power cast multiple times is not different powers, and does not stack. so trying to stack the same power, enfeeble on enfeeble, or hammer hand on hammer hand, is not legal
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Op would roll one test for the unit for hammer hand, since it is cast on a unit, which includes attached IC's, then another test for titan.
IC's and units have to roll force weapons activation seperately however
@Ub3rb3n the GK codex states pg 25 If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 str until the end of the assault phase.
rigeld2 wrote: Hammer hand specifies that it stacks with itself.
no it doesn't
pg 25 GK codex is right in front of me and it does NOT say it stacks with itself.
"this power is used during the assault phase in either players turn, after assault moves have been made, but before blows have been struck. if the psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 strength until the end of the assault phase. Note that this strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as nemesis daemon hammers and so forth"
says nothing about stacking with itself (though it will stack with titan)
RAW stacking the same power is ilegal,
RAW stacking DIFFERENT[u] powers is legal
quote me the rule, because I just quoted RAW in the BRB where it says you cannot stack the same power.
I believe that in the Fifth edition rulebook FAQ it mentioned something about stacking but I don't see anything in either the Grey Knights FAQ or the BRBFAQ that mention stacking of psychic powers. I do remember it being clearly defined that it was okay but that doesn't seem to be the case any longer.
The one caveat to that however is that Hammerhand is not technically a blessing as it does not have the blessing type and it is not used at the beginning of the movement phase like is mentioned in the BRB. Since it is not a blessing it isn't limited by the rules for blessing which do clearly state that only different psychic power stack. The power, as written, has no limitations on how many times it can be cast on a unit other than the general limitation that a psyker may not cast the same power more than once barring any special rule to the contrary.
It says bonuses and penalties from different blessings stack. "Different blessings" can also be read to mean blessings cast by different casters.
Actually, it's not as explicit as it used to be. The GKFAQ used to explicitly say that Hammerhand stacks with itself, but they took that out with the 6th ed update.
RAW stacking the same power is ilegal,
RAW stacking DIFFERENT[u] powers is legal
quote me the rule, because I just quoted RAW in the BRB where it says you cannot stack the same power.
The Rulebook doesn't say this.
Different blessings stack.
You're confusing this with same powers can't stack. Very different, and not what the rule says.
One Psyker casts Hammerhand, another casts Hammerhand. You now have two different Hammerhands. Same power, but different castings.
Two identical cars, are still two different cars.
Mannahnin wrote: It says bonuses and penalties from different blessings stack. "Different blessings" can also be read to mean blessings cast by different casters.
Actually, it's not as explicit as it used to be. The GKFAQ used to explicitly say that Hammerhand stacks with itself, but they took that out with the 6th ed update.
Thanks. I knew I read it somewhere. I just misremembered where. And didn't know they'd removed it.
actually a different caster casting the same psychic power is still the same psychic power,
I quoted above the page in the BRB where it specifically says only different powers can stack
not just blessings and maledictions, it says all powers above those two sections as well, right under "resolve the psychic power" in the top right on the pg above i quoted
you have yet to quote the rule book for actual RAW saying the the exact same power can stack with itself, even if from different casters.
you may play it as a house rule, but the BRBRAW says only different powers may stack, the rule book would simply say they stack if they did, instead it says only different powers stack
unless you have your oppenents consent to change this rule, it is illegal to stack the same power
GW cannot FAQ away peoples lack of reading comprehension,
this is clear cut, RAW say you can stack DIFFERENT powers,
some people think this means you can stack the exact same power, from different casters, and they are wrong, and breaking the rules (weather maliciously or not)
not the same one over and over
GW cannot FAQ away peoples lack of reading comprehension,
this is clear cut, RAW say you can stack DIFFERENT powers,
some people think this means you can stack the exact same power, from different casters, and they are wrong, and breaking the rules (weather maliciously or not)
not the same one over and over
Yes they can.
Please explain to me how the passage:
(I'm not complaining about POTMS or the changes, for the record.)
"May fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed"
could possibly be misconstrued as
"may fire one more weapon than would normally be allowed, except when you pop smoke."
There is no legitimate RAW reason for this. The closest to a legitimate reason that people give is a fluff based reason, which any good player knows should neverever apply.
GW can and will change the very comprehensive core of RAW if it'll make people shut the feth up.
/rant
You're right, but don't assume that people actually comprehend what they read. While sometimes the rules have grey areas, it is also true that people can sometimes just plain not pick up on things.
again, when the whole "arguement" for something rests on words meaning something other then what they mean, its not a good basis,
when the BRB specifically states, under maledicitons, as well as under blessings, and in addition says for psychic powers in general that all the diffferent ones stack, its cut and dry
you can argue the intent of the rules is to allow for identical powers to stack, but RAW only allow different powers to stack
again, when the whole "arguement" for something rests on words meaning something other then what they mean, its not a good basis,
when the BRB specifically states, under maledicitons, as well as under blessings, and in addition says for psychic powers in general that all the diffferent ones stack, its cut and dry
you can argue the intent of the rules is to allow for identical powers to stack, but RAW only allow different powers to stack
The rules doesn't say different powers, it says different blessings.
If it said different powers, then you'd be right. It would be clear cut. But it doesn't.
the BRB does NOT state you can stack multiple identical powers,
so unless someone quotes an actual rule that allows this, there is no basis for it
and there is an actual RAW that forbids it (brb specifically states that different powers (not casters) stack)
argueing that power=caster is not logical, or correct
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: rules doesn't say different powers, it says different blessings.
If it said different powers, then you'd be right. It would be clear cut. But it doesn't.
actually, you need to read that page again, it says powers in the top right of that page, right under resolve psychic power pg 68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
it specifically says for blessings, maledictions, under that part,
There really isn't.
You have permission to apply stat modifiers via blessings, nothing then prevents them stacking.
There's a rule saying the benefits of different blessing are cumulative (however you choose to read it), there is still nothing preventing the stacking of blessings.
the rule book says different powers (specifically uses that word powers)
the rule book is permissive, not restrictive
IE just because the rule book doesnt say you cannot use loaded dice, does not mean you can use them
permission is only given to stack different powers
permission is not given to stack identical powers,
other wise RAW would say "psychic powers are cumulative"
as opposed to "different psychic powers are cumulative"
you can argue its RAI to stack all psychic powers,
but RAW does not support this, RAW just says its ok to stack different powers
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: The rules doesn't say different powers, it says different blessings.
If it said different powers, then you'd be right. It would be clear cut. But it doesn't.
and there I just showed you where it says "different powers"
and you completly ignore that RAW rule, and keep going on...
by your own words, this is clear cut, you can stack different powers,
you need to find permission to stack identical powers,
I do not need to prove a negative here, you need to prove you have permission to do somthing NOT written in the rule book
easysauce wrote: the rule book says different powers (specifically uses that word powers)
the rule book is permissive, not restrictive
IE just because the rule book doesnt say you cannot use loaded dice, does not mean you can use them
permission is only given to stack different powers
permission is not given to stack identical powers,
and one psykers casting is a different power than another psykers casting.
I have shown permission to cast psychic powers, at the same target. As you know, with a permissive ruleset, once you are given permission to do something you can do that until something takes that permission away.
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative" P. 68
easysauce wrote: the rule book says different powers (specifically uses that word powers)
Really? The word "power" does not appear once in the blessing rules.
Page 68.
dude, read my post, read the whole thing, and actually look at the BRB page, where I am quoting, not the section below it. pg 68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
ABOVE the rules for blessings, and maledictions, there in the top right of the page, under "resolving psychic powers"
it says "different psychic powers are cumulitive"
Automatically Appended Next Post: you have permission to cast the same power again with a different caster, you do NOT have permission to stack that same power,
you still ahve not given any RAW that says identical powers stack,
where as there is a RAW saying different powers stack, which does mean identical powers do not stack
pg 68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
I don't think we can for sure know, but based of some of the new Chaos spells I'd say different casters can stack the same spell.
Sucks for my monsters at times :(
you are contending that "different powers are cumulative" means "all powers are cumulative"
which is A: an assuption, B not RAW, and not IMORAI
however when I read that "different powers are cumulative"
I know it means "different powers are cumulative"
stop, that is is, there is no hidden meaning whereby this one permission for different powers to stack also means that ALL powers now stack
Mannahnin wrote: Actually, it's not as explicit as it used to be. The GKFAQ used to explicitly say that Hammerhand stacks with itself, but they took that out with the 6th ed update.
Just to pick a nit here, the last 5th ed GKFAQ said nothing about Hammerhand stacking. However, per the last BRBFAQ for 5th ed:
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Grey Templar wrote: Hammerhand isn't a Blessing. Therefore any restrictions placed upon Blessings don't apply. And it stacks with itself.
The restrictions on blessings, and maledictions, are also on all powers. if you read the pertanent page that has the restrictions of blessings/maledictions,
up in the top right, under resolve psychic powers, it states that "different powers are cumulative"
please actually read my posts, the BRB does say different powers, right above where it says different maledictions/blessings
posted, yet again, copied word for word pg 68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
easysauce wrote:im not reading a restriction that is not there,
you are reading a permission that is not there.
No, I am not, given you have failed to answer my question.
I have permission to increase the strength from 4 to 5
I cast again, and I am told to increase the strength by 1. I increase it to 6
I have permission. Find the restriction, or concede
easysauce wrote:permission to stack different powers, is not permission to stack identical powers.
Find where I said that. I have just pointed out to you in my prior post exactly the mistake you are making in your fallacious argument
easysauce wrote:you have to show where the rule book gives permission to stack identical powers
No, actually I have to show permission to use 2 different castings of the same power to increase the strength from 4 to 6. I have done. I keep pointing this out - and you have no argument against it.
AGain - YOU must find a way to restrict it. DO so, or concede. You clearly are still misunderstanding the ruleset
you need to find permission to stack identical powers,
we do what the rules say,
we do not do what the rules do not say.
the RAW say we can stack different powers
the RAW do NOT say we can stack identical powers
so RAW only allows us to stack different powers, there are not unwritten rules that grant permission to do things,
you MUST find a rule saying you can stack identical powers, and the RAW says different powers stack, which is an esxclusive statement, otherwise they would not have put that word different in there. the inclusion of the word different actually matters, and cant just be ignored in order to break the rules
I find it odd you claim to know why GW words things the way they do. I can do that too! Seeing as it was in the previous FAQ as being allowed and they simply removed it rather than changing the answer for the entry, and seeing as how there is nothing in the book saying you can't (the inclusion of the word different is an ambiguous point to stand on) I think they mean to allow it. Every side of this argument is based purely on assumption. Hell the new DA codex is rife with entries not making any sense. In the end the game relies on assumptions to hazy rules.
What do you care anyway? It was common knowledge that they allowed it last edition. They've also made 3 FAQ updates since then and still have not disallowed it. Or is this some "stick it to the GK players cuz I think they are super cheese" arguments?
I play GK.... I wish I could stack HH, but I cant its unfair, and illegal
I have played them for several editions
stacking the same power is against RAW
you only get permission to stack different powers this edition,
why did GW use the word different?
really? because they meant different.
RAW is stack different powers
you can argue that RAI is that you can stack everything, but RAW state you only get to stack different ones. there is no permission given to stack identical ones
nosferatu1001 wrote: I have to show permission to use 2 different castings of the same power to increase the strength from 4 to 6. I have done. I keep pointing this out - and you have no argument against it.
AGain - YOU must find a way to restrict it. DO so, or concede. You clearly are still misunderstanding the ruleset
This really says it all. Find the restriction, with page references to the specific rules, or concede.
you are choosing to read "different powers are cumulative"
as "all powers are cumulative"
and RAW does not say all powers, it says different powers
you arguement keeps jumping around,
its ok to stack HH because the HH rule says it does (it doesnt)
its ok to stack HH with HH because its not a blessing (this doesnt matter, "different powers" includes all powers, they use the word diffferent for powers, maledicions, and blessings)
its ok to stack HH with hh because despite there being a rule saying different powers are cumulative, and no rule stating that identical powers are not, I am going to use the unwritten rule to justify stacking identical powers.
none of those have proof, the only RAW being quoted here is "different powers are cumulative"
you are only given permission to stack different powers,
you must be given permission to stack identical pwers, or you cannot do so.
you need to find where it gives permission to stack identical powers (different casters is not different powers, again, words do not mean other words just because you want them to)
40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore you need permision to do anything. The, in the rulebook, is no clear permission fo the same powers to stack.
The FAQ says (taken form Happyjew):
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This gives permission for the same powers to stack unless there is a restriction (either in the rules of the power or another rule)
The "Different Powers Stack" bit does not restrict this FAQ, as it is a permission to do something, not a restriction to do something.
40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore you need permision to do anything. The, in the rulebook, is no clear permission fo the same powers to stack.
The FAQ says (taken form Happyjew):
Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast
multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50)
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This gives permission for the same powers to stack unless there is a restriction (either in the rules of the power or another rule)
The "Different Powers Stack" bit does not restrict this FAQ, as it is a permission to do something, not a restriction to do something.
I would say they can stack, beacause of the FAQ
The only problem with that FAQ is it's from 5th edition.
40k is a permissive ruleset, therefore you need permision to do anything. The, in the rulebook, is no clear permission fo the same powers to stack.
The FAQ says (taken form Happyjew): Q: Do the effects of the same psychic power cast multiple times on the same unit stack? (p50) A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This gives permission for the same powers to stack unless there is a restriction (either in the rules of the power or another rule)
The "Different Powers Stack" bit does not restrict this FAQ, as it is a permission to do something, not a restriction to do something.
I would say they can stack, beacause of the FAQ
The only problem with that FAQ is it's from 5th edition.
Ah, well that stuffs it.
For now I'd say it can't, as there isn't any clear permission. Of course, that isn't HIWPI, unless I was fscing THAT guy...
but RAW, no blessing, malediction, power, stacks wtih itself, because they are only given permission to stack with different powers
you need permission to do something in this game
there does NOT need to be a written restriction for every single action you are not given permission to do, because by definition, you are only allowed to do what the rules permit you to do
Yes, there is permission for stat bonuses to stack.
But, said stat bonus is from a psychic power.
two HH have no permission to stack. HH and Titan have permssion to sack.
The stat bonus isn't applied until the psychic power is sucessfully cast. It can't be sucessfully cast if it can't stack with another power already cast.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yes, there is permission for stat bonuses to stack.
But, said stat bonus is from a psychic power.
two HH have no permission to stack. HH and Titan have permssion to sack.
The stat bonus isn't applied until the psychic power is sucessfully cast. It can't be sucessfully cast if it can't stack with another power already cast.
I have permission, from the psychic power itself. Prove I need more permission than that.
It does not say "+1S to unmodified S", so once you apply the second power the Strength is required to increase by 1, with no restrictions based on previous applications.
You dont need a "this can stack" permission, you need to find a reason why the rule cannot be applied twice. Find such a restriction
the rule book is permission based, not restriction
the power saying it grants +1str gives you permission to do that, grant +1str
it does not give you permission to stack the same power.
and different casters is not different powers,
it says different powers stack,
Hammer hand is hammer hand no matter who casts it.
RAW again only let you stack different powers, you need permission to stack the same power
it is a permissive rule book, not a restrictive one, that is why you need to prove the permission.
and you cannot argue that different caster = different power, that is completely illogical. How can one caster, casting one power, ever stack with its own casting of the power? you cant even cast the same power twice with the same psyker
casting the SAMe power, with two different psykers does not mean those identical powers stack, sure you can cast them, so what? that isnt what you need permission to do, you need permission to stack the same power, not cast it on a target already under its affect.
easysauce wrote: the rule book is permission based, not restriction
Exactly right, but I think you don't quite grasp the nature of a permissive rules set.
You can't do anything without permission.
You also need restrictions to control these permissions. Restrictions must be stronger than permissions for rules to work.
We have permission to apply blessings.
Nothing stops us doing it again. And again.
A restriction really is needed to prevent stacking.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Now show me where it allows you to apply the effect of HH if HH has already been cast on the unit.
If there is permission, it would be in the FAQ or C: GK, as I can't see anything in the rule book that gives you permission.
You realise that is not how a permissive ruleset works right?
We have a blanket permission to cast the power.
We already have permission by virtue of the Psychic power Targeting rules. It says to target a unit in Line of Sight. It gives no other restriction therefore we can cast that power on a unit in Line of Sight.
To disallow casting the power again on the same unit in Line of Sight there needs to be a specific restriction to take away the blanket permission.
You have permission to cast the power on the unit, with no restriction on the number of times you can do so given in the rules
You have permission to apply a blanket +1S to the unit, with no requirement that this is only applied the once, or can only be applied to unmodified strength
Thus, you have permission to cast it twice (or more) and to apply the effects.
Now, find a restriction. Pagae and paragraph, or concede you have no argument
Easysauce - have you found that restriction then? Because I have shown, repeatedly, the permission. You keep on refusing to engage the fact your argument has been shot full of holes, and are thus simply trolling as you are making assertions with no basis in rules. Desist, please, and follow the actual rules
I'm not saying you aren't allowed to cast it, I'm saying that it would be pointless as only different powers stack. You can cast it but you'd get no positive effects, only negatives (wasting a warp charge, chance to kill yourself for nothing, etc.)
Stat bonuses would normally stack, but as only the effects of different power stack (unless speciafically stated elsewhere) you wouldn't gain +2 strength from 2 seperate HH, only +1
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I'm not saying you aren't allowed to cast it, I'm saying that it would be pointless as only different powers stack. You can cast it but you'd get no positive effects, only negatives (wasting a warp charge, chance to kill yourself for nothing, etc.)
Sigh. Reread my post. Actually use some rules this time.
remember: permission granted for one power does nto mean a similar power has no permission. I have, a few times now, shown permission. You have not engaged with this argument, and just repeat the same, refuted argument over and over like you are actually adding something. Youre not.
I wonder how this actually works,
in RAW I don't see why any psychic powers aren't allowed to stack.
Such as witchfire and beam could stack for sure, since you just need different pskers to cast it.
But since Hammerhead is not a blessing it doesn't really follow under any of them besides the general psychic power.
And in the BRB it states that use the books rules for the psychic power.
According to GK's HH rule, it says:
If psychic test is passed all models in the unit have +1 S until the end of the assault phase.
1. you have to agree that you are allowed to cast this multiple times.
2. The BRB clearly says that psychic powers with no types follow their book's rules.
Combining these 2 you can have the same effect over and over again.
Different powers stacking have nothing to do in this case, since we aren't talking about blessings nor maledictions and GK's HH does not fall under any of the psychic types in the BRB.
Makutsu wrote: I wonder how this actually works,
in RAW I don't see why any psychic powers aren't allowed to stack.
Such as witchfire and beam could stack for sure, since you just need different pskers to case it.
But since Hammerhead is not a blessing it doesn't really follow under any of them besides the general psychic power.
And in the BRB it states that use the books rules for the psychic power.
According to GK's HH rule, it says:
If psychic test is passed all models in the unit have +1 S until the end of the assault phase.
1. you have to agree that you are allowed to cast this multiple times.
2. The BRB clearly says that psychic powers with no types follow their book's rules.
Combining these 2 you can have the same effect over and over again.
Different powers stacking have nothing to do in this case, since we aren't talking about blessings nor maledictions and GK's HH does not fall under any of the psychic types in the BRB.
This would be correct, except that the "Resolve Psychic Powers Section" (which is where the "effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" rule located) is for all psychic powers, not just ones with BRB types.
remember: permission granted for one power does nto mean a similar power has no permission. I have, a few times now, shown permission. You have not engaged with this argument, and just repeat the same, refuted argument over and over like you are actually adding something. Youre not.
1. "effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" is a rule.
2. I agree, permission granted for one thing doesn't mean another doesn't have permission. Unfortunately the rule book doesn't clearly say it has permission, nor does it actually say it doesn't, which is where I believe the conflict lies. As it doesn't CLEARLY state it has permission, it doesn't stack.
3. You have shown permission that stat bonuses stack, and that the power itself gives no restrictions, not that it has permission for two of the same power to stack.
4. You have done the same thing. You keep on saying "+1 strength gives permission" and "HH doesn't list restrictions". Everyone is refutuing the same arguement over and over.
"Effects of multiple different powers are cumulative" does not mean "effects of multiples of the same powers are not cumulative". The latter is what you're asserting and have shown no basis for.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I'm not saying you aren't allowed to cast it, I'm saying that it would be pointless as only different powers stack. You can cast it but you'd get no positive effects, only negatives (wasting a warp charge, chance to kill yourself for nothing, etc.)
Stat bonuses would normally stack, but as only the effects of different power stack (unless speciafically stated elsewhere) you wouldn't gain +2 strength from 2 seperate HH, only +1
exactly,
being allowed to CAST something is not being allowed to have that same power stack
again, RAW "different psychic powers are cumulative"
giving you the ability to stack any different power
hypothesis that you can stack any power you want with itself, AND any other power,
this is flawed for several reasons.
A; the word different means nothing
B; the act of casting a power with a different model makes hammer hand/enfeeble somehow not hammer hand/enfeeble, and a different power altogether
C; that every single power is cumulative with itself and every other power
D; casting a power is the same as stacking a power
here is RAW,
68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power, this is before the section on blessings and maledictions, although they also specifically stipulate you can stack all different blessings/maledictions as well. "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
so RAW is that every single power is cumulative with every different power.
Stop, do not pass go, here is where you are assuming there is a magical "and itself". it is not there. Do not assume there is an unwritten rule that lets you treat this as C above. that is not RAW,
the idea that a different model casting the same power makes it a different power is ludicrous.
this is why.
model x casts power y on target
model z casts power y on target
so you are contending that power y is not the same power? how can you cast it and have the same effects, and same name on the power, yet it not be itself? every time i hear people justifiing the rules being broken, it always involces
two different models, yes, but does this magically make a power into a different power?,
no,
to deny this is to deny reality, because there is in fact two models casting the same power in this situation.
rigeld2 wrote: "Effects of multiple different powers are cumulative" does not mean "effects of multiples of the same powers are not cumulative". The latter is what you're asserting and have shown no basis for.
It also doesn't mean "The effects of all psychic powers are cumulative.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I'm not saying you aren't allowed to cast it, I'm saying that it would be pointless as only different powers stack. You can cast it but you'd get no positive effects, only negatives (wasting a warp charge, chance to kill yourself for nothing, etc.)
Stat bonuses would normally stack, but as only the effects of different power stack (unless speciafically stated elsewhere) you wouldn't gain +2 strength from 2 seperate HH, only +1
exactly,
being allowed to CAST something is not being allowed to have that same power stack
again, RAW "different psychic powers are cumulative"
giving you the ability to stack any different power
your hypothesis that you can stack any power you want with itself, AND any other power,
this is flawed for several reasons.
A; the word different means nothing
B; the act of casting a power with a different model makes hammer hand/enfeeble somehow not hammer hand/enfeeble, and a different power altogether
C; that every single power is cumulative with itself and every other power
D; casting a power is the same as stacking a power
here is RAW,
68 BRB top right of page under resolve psychic power, this is before the section on blessings and maledictions, although they also specifically stipulate you can stack all different blessings/maledictions as well. "unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
so RAW is that every single power is cumulative with every different power.
Stop, do not pass go, here is where you are assuming there is a magical "and itself". it is not there. Do not assume there is an unwritten rule that lets you treat this as C above. that is not RAW,
the idea that a different model casting the same power makes it a different power is ludicrous.
this is why.
model x casts power y on target
model z casts power y on target
so you are contending that power y is not the same power? how can you cast it and have the same effects, and same name on the power, yet it not be itself? every time i hear people justifiing the rules being broken, it always involces
two different models, yes, but does this magically make a power into a different power?,
no,
to deny this is to deny reality, because there is in fact two models casting the same power in this situation.
You still don't understand the FACT that since it never says it is not cumulative, when you cast the same power on the same unit the effects on both psychic powers apply to the unit.
And by doing so they don't contradict anything.
1. BRB, powers with no types use the rules in the corresponding book.
2. Hammerhead: If psychic test is passed +1S until assault phase is over.
3. Allow different powers to be cumulative.
Do you see how 1 & 2 have nothing related to 3 at all?
3 is a case where different powers are casted on a unit.
There is nothing denying you able to cast HH multiple times. <-- Which you have agreed to.
By HH's definition everytime you successfully cast it you get +1S for the unit.
It doesn't contradict anything and by thus it's effect can be applied multiple times.
rigeld2 wrote: "Effects of multiple different powers are cumulative" does not mean "effects of multiples of the same powers are not cumulative". The latter is what you're asserting and have shown no basis for.
It also doesn't mean "The effects of all psychic powers are cumulative.
It can go both ways, you know.
It doesn't need to. A second Hammerhand is cast. It's time to resolve it - find something to deny the permission I've been granted.
If you want to see rules that give you permission to stack the same power have a look at that psychic powers in the Chaos codex.
eg. Gift of Contagion. - "The effects of multiple Gifts of Contagion are cumulative."
and Symphony of Pain - "Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative."
Does Hammer Hand have anything of the same kind of wording saying that it stacks with itself like the ones above?
easysauce wrote: you have not been granted permission to STACK hammer hand, CASTing is not STACKing
so you have no permission to stack, so no fact remains the rules do not state every power can stack with itself and other different powers.
again your theory is that two different words mean the same thing.
you are basing your theory on things NOT said in the rules
to assert otherwise is to assert the rule book says all psychic powers stack with themselves, and all other powers
when it in fact does not.
the rule that exists, does not say you can stack the same power.
that alone means you cannot do it, there does not ALSO need to be a rule expressly forbidding what is already not allowed
you are allowed to stack different powers, that is all.
I don't even know what you are referring to.
Ok, by casting a psychic power you apply its effect to a unit.
Powers such as Prescience will grant you multiple times of the effect of reroll. But obiviously, you can only reroll once hence it would be a waste.
But NOTHING denies that me from doing that.
Ok, so you say I need permission to stack, why is this? I am following rules that are given by permission already.
1. Cast HH.
2. Resolve HH.
3. Cast HH.
4. Resolve HH.
and so on and so forth.
By doing so I have NEVER broken any rules.
When resolving HH, the rules say that you have +1S if psychic test is passed. Simple as that.
NOTHING denies that it doesn't stack, you simply +1S to the unit. That simple.
I didn't break ANY rules, AND I was following the rules of the book.
Spoiler:
quibble wrote: If you want to see rules that give you permission to stack the same power have a look at that psychic powers in the Chaos codex.
eg. Gift of Contagion. - "The effects of multiple Gifts of Contagion are cumulative."
and Symphony of Pain - "Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative."
Does Hammer Hand have anything of the same kind of wording saying that it stacks with itself like the ones above?
Since name calling is against the rules of Dakkadakka I'm not gonna say anything.
But do know you are comparing a 2011 codex vs a brand new 2013 codex.
And no it doesn't, but it does say +1S if psychic test is passed.
So since I am allowed to cast it again and again, the +1S can stack as long as I pass the psychic test.
easysauce, you do know that your argument is hinged on the notion that "different psychic powers are cumulative." is limited by name; where as the other half is hinged on the fact that they are different powers by model casting them.
Both sides have valid points, a faq is required to specify which 'different' it is that they are using.
Shrouding grants stealth. Stealth awards +1 cover save if you have it, not +1 for each instance of stealth you have.
Hmm, stealth is a special rule. In the rule book it says a model cant benefit from a special rule more then once so how can several stealth +1 covers stack?
Shrouding grants stealth. Stealth awards +1 cover save if you have it, not +1 for each instance of stealth you have.
Hmm, stealth is a special rule. In the rule book it says a model cant benefit from a special rule more then once so how can several stealth +1 covers stack?
+1 Strength isn't a special rule. It is +1 Strength. Pg 32. "However, the effects of multiple different rules are cumulative." OMG we can have multiple USR?! This, like the quote from pg 68. "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative", is clearly just put in the BRB to keep people from having to hear "the rule book doesn't say you can have multiple USR or psychic buffs so you have to choose just one even though the unit entry has multiple rules listed. The ambiuous language has clearly caused a bit of a stir, and the only argument is based on the word different being present in the psyker section. This seems a bit silly to me.
Melta also seems to be a special rule. But UH OH it seems you're veteran squad can take them but the special rule isn't listed in their entry so no dice can't use the weapons profile. Sorry! The BRB doesn't seem to clearly point out that a unit carrying a specific weapon gets to use that weapons profile and special rules! Whoopsies! This method of argument is clearly ridiculous. The funny thing is that it is exactly the same argument the nay-sayers seem to be using. If the BRB doesn't clearly and concisely point out exactly what I can do at any given point than it is not allowed by any stretch of the imagination.
easysauce wrote: you have not been granted permission to STACK hammer hand, CASTing is not STACKing
so you have no permission to stack, so no fact remains the rules do not state every power can stack with itself and other different powers.
I have permission to cast the power. I succeed. I now have permission to add 1 to a units STR value.
Find something to deny that permission.
again your theory is that two different words mean the same thing.
Incorrect.
you are basing your theory on things NOT said in the rules
Well - yes. I'm basing it off of the fact that I'm allowed to cast a power and there is nothing in the rules that denies me permission to have the power work.
to assert otherwise is to assert the rule book says all psychic powers stack with themselves, and all other powers
when it in fact does not.
You're right - it doesn't say that.
the rule that exists, does not say you can stack the same power.
I'm curious - are there any rules talking about what happens with "the same power"?
that alone means you cannot do it, there does not ALSO need to be a rule expressly forbidding what is already not allowed
Cite where I am not allowed to stack similar/same powers.
you are allowed to stack different powers, that is all.
There is no rule in any part of the BRB or FAQs that say that. Please cite one if you find it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
quibble wrote: If you want to see rules that give you permission to stack the same power have a look at that psychic powers in the Chaos codex.
eg. Gift of Contagion. - "The effects of multiple Gifts of Contagion are cumulative."
and Symphony of Pain - "Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative."
Does Hammer Hand have anything of the same kind of wording saying that it stacks with itself like the ones above?
That's an argument for intent, not what the rules actually say.
Shrouding grants stealth. Stealth awards +1 cover save if you have it, not +1 for each instance of stealth you have.
Hmm, stealth is a special rule. In the rule book it says a model cant benefit from a special rule more then once so how can several stealth +1 covers stack?
+1 Strength isn't a special rule. It is +1 Strength. Pg 32. "However, the effects of multiple different rules are cumulative." OMG we can have multiple USR?! This, like the quote from pg 68. "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative", is clearly just put in the BRB to keep people from having to hear "the rule book doesn't say you can have multiple USR or psychic buffs so you have to choose just one even though the unit entry has multiple rules listed. The ambiuous language has clearly caused a bit of a stir, and the only argument is based on the word different being present in the psyker section. This seems a bit silly to me.
Melta also seems to be a special rule. But UH OH it seems you're veteran squad can take them but the special rule isn't listed in their entry so no dice can't use the weapons profile. Sorry! The BRB doesn't seem to clearly point out that a unit carrying a specific weapon gets to use that weapons profile and special rules! Whoopsies! This method of argument is clearly ridiculous. The funny thing is that it is exactly the same argument the nay-sayers seem to be using. If the BRB doesn't clearly and concisely point out exactly what I can do at any given point than it is not allowed by any stretch of the imagination.
I didnt talk about granting a +1 strenght.
I said that shrouding gives a unit the stealth USR and the rulebook says a model cannot benefit from a special rule more then once.
Thus my question is:
1: If two GK librarians cast shrouding on the same unit then that unit will get stealth twice. According to the rulebook the unit cannot benefit more then once from stealth and will thus only get a +1 cover save. Yes or no?
Probably the same thing but I´ll write it anyway.
2: A GK librarian cast shrouding on a vindicare assassin. A unit already having stealth giving it the stealth USR on top of the vindicares built-in stealth...will the vindicare now get +2 cover or as per the rulebook only +1 cover since a model cannot benefit more then once from a special rule?
Pyriel- wrote: Thus my question is:
1: If two GK librarians cast shrouding on the same unit then that unit will get stealth twice. According to the rulebook the unit cannot benefit more then once from stealth and will thus only get a +1 cover save. Yes or no?
Yes, that unit will get Stealth twice. Because of two different rules really: Model can benefit from a Special Rule (as defined on pages 32-43) only once. Second reason is that if you had read the actual rules text of Stealth, you would have noticed that it is worded so that it doesn't matter if the unit has 1 source of Stealth or 10 sources of Stealth.
Pyriel- wrote: 2: A GK librarian cast shrouding on a vindicare assassin. A unit already having stealth giving it the stealth USR on top of the vindicares built-in stealth...will the vindicare now get +2 cover or as per the rulebook only +1 cover since a model cannot benefit more then once from a special rule?
+1. For exactly same reasons as above.
But note that +1 to Strength is not a special rule by any definition. There might be special rules that give +1 S (Furious Charge for example), but that is completely different thing. Anyone who argues that HH doesn't stack because of the "No stacking of special rules" is also arguing that having Power Axe and Furious Charge don't stack.
Easysauce - thank you for conceding your point, given you have still not found where permission is denied and I have shown where permission is granted.
Pyriel- wrote: Thus my question is:
1: If two GK librarians cast shrouding on the same unit then that unit will get stealth twice. According to the rulebook the unit cannot benefit more then once from stealth and will thus only get a +1 cover save. Yes or no?
Yes, that unit will get Stealth twice. Because of two different rules really: Model can benefit from a Special Rule (as defined on pages 32-43) only once. Second reason is that if you had read the actual rules text of Stealth, you would have noticed that it is worded so that it doesn't matter if the unit has 1 source of Stealth or 10 sources of Stealth.
Pyriel- wrote: 2: A GK librarian cast shrouding on a vindicare assassin. A unit already having stealth giving it the stealth USR on top of the vindicares built-in stealth...will the vindicare now get +2 cover or as per the rulebook only +1 cover since a model cannot benefit more then once from a special rule?
+1. For exactly same reasons as above.
But note that +1 to Strength is not a special rule by any definition. There might be special rules that give +1 S (Furious Charge for example), but that is completely different thing. Anyone who argues that HH doesn't stack because of the "No stacking of special rules" is also arguing that having Power Axe and Furious Charge don't stack.
@ pyriel- oh I thought you were using the stealth question as a point to debate from. I didn't know it was an actual question. I'm terribly sorry for my mix up!
No problem korghan. I kinda wondered why you gave me a hard time over the +1strenght
I am merely asking about the stacking of USRs in general such as stealth since some of my friends keep telling me that I can stack multiple stealths and some say I cant and the rulebook says you cannot benefit from a USR more then once thus a double shrouding librarians are pretty useless (Imo).
Pyriel- wrote: No problem korghan. I kinda wondered why you gave me a hard time over the +1strenght
I am merely asking about the stacking of USRs in general such as stealth since some of my friends keep telling me that I can stack multiple stealths and some say I cant and the rulebook says you cannot benefit from a USR more then once thus a double shrouding librarians are pretty useless (Imo).
Yea sorry about that again. I jump right on a soap box when people start complaining about armies being OP. as said you can multi-cast shrouding but it is useless.
And yes, DarthSpader, we know we're awesome. Thank you for the compliment! So nice of you
You can stack the mods of different blessings
You cannot stack the mod of the same blessing cast by a different caster. Notice where two words come in to play in those to sentences.
Stack DIFFERENT blessings
Stack SAME blessings cast by DIFFERENT psykers.
The word is used in a different spot in the sentence and therefore shouldn't really be confused. They do not stack. There are multiple blessings that do similar things that can stack that is what they are clarifying by that sentence..
i may be wrong here, but a quote requires quotation marks... i asked a question based on my interpretation of what he wrote. you felt the need to repost his and my reply, tell me to Re-read his post, with a quotation of your own. the entire tone of your reply was rude and rather insulting. if you felt i misinterpreted his post a simple, "he was just being funny, there is no actual hammer hand rule posting." would have been sufficient. instead you felt the need to speak to me as if i was infearior. that about answer your question?
Larotonda1984 wrote: i may be wrong here, but a quote requires quotation marks... i asked a question based on my interpretation of what he wrote.
By saying "you said" you were saying that Darthspader said those words.
You posted this:
Larotonda1984 wrote: @Darthspader. you said hammerhand is up already. mind adding a link?
You were talking to Darthspader, and by saying "you said Hammerhand is up already" it means that you think Darthspader said "Hammerhand is up already" which of course, is not true, as Darthspader said "Hammerhand up already" (A statement saying to take an action and cast Hammerhand already, Similar to "Suit up" means go an put on a suit).
That "is", makes the sentence different.
you felt the need to repost his and my reply, tell me to Re-read his post, with a quotation of your own. the entire tone of your reply was rude and rather insulting. if you felt i misinterpreted his post a simple, "he was just being funny, there is no actual hammer hand rule posting." would have been sufficient. instead you felt the need to speak to me as if i was infearior. that about answer your question?
It really doesn't. I said that you should re-read what Darthspader said. I did not want you to misquote him.
jegsar wrote: You can stack the mods of different blessings
You cannot stack the mod of the same blessing cast by a different caster. Notice where two words come in to play in those to sentences.
Stack DIFFERENT blessings
Stack SAME blessings cast by DIFFERENT psykers.
The word is used in a different spot in the sentence and therefore shouldn't really be confused. They do not stack. There are multiple blessings that do similar things that can stack that is what they are clarifying by that sentence..
Can you cite where you got the 2nd sentence from? The one referencing SAME?
nosferatu1001 wrote: RAW you have permission to cast the same power from different sources onto the same target.
I am making a statement about english grammar.
Using a example sentence from someone who is arguing for using the "same power" i paraphrased to "same blessing" and how it contradicts what the brb sates.
Find any rule anywhere in the rule book or FAQs that mentions the same blessing stacking. The only one I've ever found refers to different blessings. Perhaps you've found something else?
nosferatu1001 wrote: RAW you have permission to cast the same power from different sources onto the same target.
I am making a statement about english grammar.
Using a example sentence from someone who is arguing for using the "same power" i paraphrased to "same blessing" and how it contradicts what the brb sates.
I don't think the pro-stacking argument really rests on the definition of that BRB line at all. The pro-stacking camp is saying that they have permission to stack because they have permission to cast the power at a target and resolve the power. They are saying that line is meaningless - you already have blanket permission to cast different powers on the same target so stating it again is redundant and is done only for purposes of clarity.
You could make a RAI argument that there would be no reason for that line to exist unless the converse wasn't true (that you couldn't stack the same power on the one target) but that is solely RAI because you are already granted permission to cast the power on the same unit (no stipulations are supplied in the BRB) and so to not be able to stack the power there must be a line revoking that permission in this case. The line about effects of multiple different powers being cumulative does not state that the same power is not cumulative; none of the argument relies on this line, because you already have blanket permission to attempt to cast the same power twice on the same unit (it is the same case as attempting to cast the power once on the unit, repeated).
I find it difficult to even make a proper RAI argument here because the Psyker rules don't seem to draw any distinction between a psychic power template (a spell) and a manifested instance of a psychic power (a spellcast). They're both just referred to as "the psychic power."
so let me get this straight, a ML3 Librarian attached to a unit of GKs can cast HH once from the gks themselves, and the Librarian can cast HH twice and MotT once to give the entire unit S8? soooo why bother giving them hammers at all when you can get halberds at I6 S8 ap3?? all for what..25 (assuming a basic GKSS) points a model and a 200 point Libby?Heck throw a second IC in there and you can get S9...or is this all too good to be true?
nosferatu1001 wrote: RAW you have permission to cast the same power from different sources onto the same target.
I am making a statement about english grammar.
Using a example sentence from someone who is arguing for using the "same power" i paraphrased to "same blessing" and how it contradicts what the brb sates.
I have, instead, been making an argument based onthe fact that the rule you keep quoting does not say *anything* about the same power; It is entirely 100% silent on the matter. As such it cannot be said to be a restriction - all it does is give permission in X case. Which is redundant, because you already have permission to cast the same power from different casters onto the same target, and unless the power itself prohibits stacking (explicitly or as a consequence of the pwoer; 2 x stealth == 1 x stealth as far as the rules are concerned) the pwoers must stack.
Goat wrote: I keep seeing this word "blessing" being used. When did hammerhand get categorized as this?
Page 68, very last sentence under "Resolve Psychic Power". It then repeats itself, replacing "different powers" with "different blessings" and "different maledictions" under Blessings and Maledictions respectively.
Hammerhand s not a blessing, it does not have a type.
I think the key to all of this is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Now breaking down "multiple different" would mean more than one different psychic power so if you have Hammerhand and MOtT they are cumulative as they are different and if there happened to be a third (different than the last two) psychic power it would also be cumulative.
In the GK codex the rules for these psychic powers seem to coincide with what the BRB states, since MOtT specifically says that its effects are cumulative with HH.
If the intent for HH was to be cumulative with itself why was it not "stated otherwise" as the BRB rule says it should?
Edit: Furthermore I think looking at the Chaos psychic powers in how it specifically "states otherwise" the effects of multiple X are cumulative. Where X = specific psychic power by name. Until the GK psychic power is FAQd to read the same as that I will not allow it to stack.
Aglobalthreat wrote: I think the key to all of this is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Yes, this tells us that (different) Psychic powers are always cumulative, unless otherwise stated. Ie psychic power must state that "This power is not cumulative", for it not to be cumulative. In all other cases it is.
Aglobalthreat wrote: If the intent for HH was to be cumulative with itself why was it not "stated otherwise" as the BRB rule says it should?
Read that BRB line again. It is not stating what you think it is stating. In fact, it is stating a rule completely opposite of what you think it is stating.
You have for some reason changed the text in your mind to be "Effects of psychic powers are never cumulative, unless otherwise stated".
Aglobalthreat wrote: I think the key to all of this is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Yes, this tells us that (different) Psychic powers are always cumulative, unless otherwise stated. Ie psychic power must state that "This power is not cumulative", for it not to be cumulative. In all other cases it is.
Aglobalthreat wrote: If the intent for HH was to be cumulative with itself why was it not "stated otherwise" as the BRB rule says it should?
Read that BRB line again. It is not stating what you think it is stating. In fact, it is stating a rule completely opposite of what you think it is stating.
You have for some reason changed the text in your mind to be "Effects of psychic powers are never cumulative, unless otherwise stated".
Exalted, honoured and submitted to God for enshrinement as the 11th commandment. There's nothing saying HH doesn't stack so, by default, it does. How is this a 4-page debate?
Ian - no, that isnt the core of the debate. The core of the "debate" is that the rules allow HH to stack, 100%, by giving you permission to cast AND resolve the power.
Nothing else matters. There are no ruels that disallow it, there is permission to do it, and the line about "different..." is entirely redundnat.
ian_destiny wrote: As I see, the core of the problem is ---- what the "different" means.
As I think , if two powers share EXACTLY THE SAME NAME(further , have exactly the same effects ) ,they are NOT different powers.
But someone think that powers with different sources(eg. different casters) are different.
Maybe we should ask GW , how to tell the "different" powers.
No, that's not the core of the debate at all - way to read 4 pages and learn nothing.
There's a sentence allowing different powers to stack.
We have permission to cast 2 of the same power. There is no restriction on them stacking. One side takes the "different" rule and leaps to the idea that if they specifically allowed different ones to stack, then same ones cannot. The other side makes no leaps at all and shows that there is no rule restricting stacking of the same power, therefore it stacks.
Then why does the chaos psychic powers say that they are cumulative with themselves if we supposedly already know this...
Hmm maybe GW is just making sure you know you can stack this power if its stated on the power and in BRB... oh wait its not stated in the BRB there is actually no ruling on it other than it saying different powers can stack.
But is there a line that says same powers are cumulative?
I would beg to reason that if not all psychic powers say they are cumulative with themselves and some do then maybe the ones that don't specify cumulative do not stack.
Since the BRB says nothing about it other than only different powers are cumulative and no where does it say same powers are cumulative I believe it needs to be FAQd and until then you should go by what the psychic power says.
The BRB says that if the psychic power does not fall into a category (Blessing, Malediction) the rules will explicitly explain how the power is used under its rule in the codex.
Under the rule for HH it does not say its cumulative but if you were to cast MotT which specifies in its rule its cumulative then that stacks.
This whole argument is based on the rules not saying that you cannot stack this power, flip side of that is that it doesn't say you can stack it anywhere as well.
There does not need to be something that specifically says that because we are given permission to cast a psychic power, then we are given permission for a different psyker to cast the same power on the same target.
Nothing disallows this therefore by default stacking is allowed via the Psychic power rules.
This whole argument is based on the rules not saying that you cannot stack this power, flip side of that is that it doesn't say you can stack it anywhere as well.
No, that is NOT what this argument is based on. The argument is based on HAVING PERMISSION to cast the power more than once on the same target, the psychic power itself working perfectly well being cast multiple times, and nothing disallowing it from working
We have, repeatedly and irrefutably, shown permission. Find a rule against it.
There does not need to be something that specifically says that because we are given permission to cast a psychic power, then we are given permission for a different psyker to cast the same power on the same target.
Nothing disallows this therefore by default stacking is allowed via the Psychic power rules.
Yes you are given permission to cast the same power by multiple units, that does not permit them to stack, go ahead and waste your warp charge all you want.
The only part that mentions stacking is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Some powers "State otherwise" that they are cumulative. Hammerhand does not and has not been FAQd to "State otherwise".
I love how you choose to completely ignore the other half of my posts, please tell me why some powers say that they are cumulative within their specific ruleset and others do not?
Maybe its a lack of GW updating rules... But based on all the other psychic powers and how they are worded and how it does not say anywhere that same powers are cumulative (its supposedly just assumed) I believe it needs to be FAQd in order to stack.
There does not need to be something that specifically says that because we are given permission to cast a psychic power, then we are given permission for a different psyker to cast the same power on the same target.
Nothing disallows this therefore by default stacking is allowed via the Psychic power rules.
Yes you are given permission to cast the same power by multiple units, that does not permit them to stack, go ahead and waste your warp charge all you want.
Citation needed, I have shown permission to cast (Lets say hammerhand) on a unit twice from two different sources, Hammerhand gives the unit +1 Strength, two castings, following normal math, would give +2 strength.
The only part that mentions stacking is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Some powers "State otherwise" that they are cumulative. Hammerhand does not and has not been FAQd to "State otherwise".
RAW says different powers stack.
People then think that also means (identical powers do not stack) Which, of course, is not true as the book does not say this anywhere.
It is a logical fallacy to equate the two. (Just because it explicitly states a permission on one thing does not mean a similar thing is restricted)
I love how you choose to completely ignore the other half of my posts, please tell me why some powers say that they are cumulative within their specific ruleset and others do not?
GW's inconsistent writing/ Some codexes are way out of date.
Maybe its a lack of GW updating rules... But based on all the other psychic powers and how they are worded and how it does not say anywhere that same powers are cumulative (its supposedly just assumed) I believe it needs to be FAQd in order to stack
You would be incorrect, as I have shown permission to cast hammerhand on the same target unit. It does not need to say "same powers are cumulative" the +1 to a stat does that for them.
Nothing restricts either power so they both have their effect, which is +1 Strength each for a total of +2 Strength.
So what i gathered from this thread is there are 2 sides
Group A) The same power can stack
Group B) Only different powers can stack
Group A decided that the sentence talking about different powers doesn't mean anything and can be ignored.
Group B is stating that the sentence means that [only] different powers can stack since explicit permission is given for this but not for the same power.
Which is a bigger leap? Ignoring a sentence completely or taking the sentence to imply "[only] different blessings stack"
I say that you should not ignore any sentence unless it has been FAQ'd. Since this is a permissive ruleset and you are only giving direct permission for A but not direct permission for B then you can only do A. Since the sentence is there and should not be ignored it is implied that the same powers don't stack.
Occam's razor agrees with the simpler answer of that 1 word was left out instead of an entire sentence added that causes more confusion.
We arent ignoring it; we're using it as a reminder.
Your conclusion is flawed. WE HAVE PERMISSION to stack powers. This is fact. You do not need explicit permission to do A if you have general permission to do {A,B,....,Z}
Do you have explicit permission to deploy inside a ruin on the 3rd level on the east wall? No, but you do have GENERAL permission to deploy anywhere in your zone. Anywhere includes this location.
Same situation.
Please, provide a rules argument that actually doesnt just attack the end point - break the chain down, or concede.
OK, why include the word "different" if you could just say, the effects of psychic powers stack?
You are choosing to ignore all meaning behind the sentence, a reminder still has no meaning as it is just a reminder.
The only flaw in both arguments comes down to 1 sentence so that is the only part of the chain that needs to be looked at, without the sentence you would be correct. Assuming this sentence isn't a waste of ink you are incorrect.
As a side note most reminders are stated as such with either parentheses or set apart from the main set of rules in another way.
Example of a reminder: page 69. WITCHFIRE
Manifesting witchfire counts as firing a Assault weapon (unless otherwise noted).
Notice the reminder in there, it doesn't need to be in there but they put in in parentheses to remind you.
As a side note most reminders are stated as such with either parentheses or set apart from the main set of rules in another way.
Yup. This one doesn't.
Seriously though, we have permission for two psykers to cast Hammerhand once each. Whete's the rule that magically tells you to ignore the second Hammerhand? In fact, one could argue that, since every individual application of Hammerhand applies before other modifiers, there is never a Hammerhand active on the target unit for the purpouses of Hammerhand stacking.
Jegsar - we have permission. Find where permission is denied
If you cannot post the actual rule - real, actual words this time, not what yoU THINK it should say, you have conceded you are now arguing a houserule / HIWPI / "RAI", and as such are required to post such under this forums tenets.
Attack the actual argument, which you have failed to do, or concede.
The sentence that states different psychic powers stack...
The only leap group B takes is that this sentence implies that the same psychic powers do not stack.
Trust me, I play CSM, often with 2 lvl 3 bio psykers, I pray they do stack, enfeeble is hilarious when combined with cultists/botlers.
A better argument for group A is that since they removed the old FAQ about HH stacking in the new FAQ means that the rules permit it however that could also be a change (nerf), similar to Eldar psychic powers.
Group A makes a big leap, they choose that a sentence does not exist, or rather it as zero impact on the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 1 easily implied word is a smaller leap then removing an entire sentence, therefore by your logic Group A should concede.
jegsar wrote: Group A makes a big leap, they choose that a sentence does not exist, or rather it as zero impact on the game.
1 easily implied word is a smaller leap then removing an entire sentence, therefore by your logic Group A should concede.
This isnt removing an entire sentence - it is treating it as a reminder.
We have made no leaps at all - we are reading the sentence exactly as written, which is that it MAKES NO MENTION of the same power, so it HAS NO POWER over same powers and their ability to stack. That isnt "making a leap", that is known as "actually reading what is written, not what you would want there to be written"
Thank you for, yet again, failing to approach the actual argument and your subsequent concession. It is accepted
blaktoof wrote: last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.
hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand
hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand
the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.
it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.
The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.
Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook
If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.
blaktoof wrote: last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.
hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand
hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand
the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.
it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.
The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.
Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook
If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.
As long as you have permission to eat apples in the first place (which we obviously do in this example, just clarifying).
Nos "or rather it as zero impact on the game."
Yes, you are choosing to treat it as a reminder therefore having zero impact on the game.
Since no one can provide where it says it CAN stack or where it CANNOT stack... it's not clear cut and in up in there air.
There is a sentence that's purpose/meaning is in question.
At the moment without FAQ or something giving general stacking allowance this is not clear cut. For the most part in the game stacking is NOT generally allowed from the same entity (The entity in this case in the power not the psyker).
Notice the reminder is separated from the text (same as this reminder).
So if someone has a searchable copy of the BRB please search for "stacking", "stack" and "+1" as one of those will lead you to more rules. If no one does this, i will do this in about 7 hours when i get home.
I am not questioning what 1+1 means, I am simply questioning the assumption that the sentence is of zero value.
blaktoof wrote: last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.
hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand
hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand
the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.
it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.
The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.
Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook
If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.
As long as you have permission to eat apples in the first place (which we obviously do in this example, just clarifying).
jegsar wrote: Nos "or rather it as zero impact on the game."
Yes, you are choosing to treat it as a reminder therefore having zero impact on the game.
Since no one can provide where it says it CAN stack or where it CANNOT stack... it's not clear cut and in up in there air.
There is a sentence that's purpose/meaning is in question.
At the moment without FAQ or something giving general stacking allowance this is not clear cut. For the most part in the game stacking is NOT generally allowed from the same entity (The entity in this case in the power not the psyker).
Notice the reminder is separated from the text (same as this reminder).
So if someone has a searchable copy of the BRB please search for "stacking", "stack" and "+1" as one of those will lead you to more rules. If no one does this, i will do this in about 7 hours when i get home.
I am not questioning what 1+1 means, I am simply questioning the assumption that the sentence is of zero value.
blaktoof wrote: last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.
hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand
hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand
the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.
it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.
The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.
Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook
If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.
As long as you have permission to eat apples in the first place (which we obviously do in this example, just clarifying).
Notice how he puts the reminder here also.
Just to remind you of what I said earlier, a reminder or clarification doesn't have to be in parentheses to be a reminder.
jegsar wrote: Agreed, but usually (a majority of the time, normally, commonly, etc...) is set apart in some way. As i said it isn't clear cut either way.
Except it is. You have permission to cast Hammerhand twice. Each cast has the effect of increasing the strength of the unit by 1. Nothing overrules your permission to cast it twice, so you do and apply the effect of each of the psychic powers. X+1+1=X+2. There is no rule telling you to make an exception from the normal rules, so you don't.
As I said, I am not questioning what 1+1 means, I am simply questioning the assumption that the sentence is of zero value.
Reasoning behind this is another majority of modifiers caused by the same rule/entity/power etc... do not stack or have been changed to explicitly stack. Example of the top of my head, USRs.
So far this sentence would be in the minority of two major majorities.
As I also stated, I don't have a searchable version of the book and when i get home I will search through the book for all uses of the word stack, stacks, and "+1" hoping one of them will lead me to a rule that goes one way or another.
You have permission to cast the power twice on the same unit, no argument, but you can't produce explicit rules one way or another if it stacks. Show me the rule that says modifiers from the same effect stack in general and I will concede my argument.
You have permission to cast the power twice on the same unit, no argument, but you can't produce explicit rules one way or another if it stacks. Show me the rule that says modifiers from the same effect stack in general and I will concede my argument.
Underlined the permission. The rest you have backwards.
If you have two psykers with warp charge available, who both use the power and succeed in their leadership test, you inherently have permission to resolve both powers cumulatively. You would need an explicit restriction to disallow the stacking at that point. And again "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative".
And you are stating a rule that modifiers from the same cause/entity/noun stack, as a general rule. Please show me that quote. A majority of modifiers from the same cause/entity/noun that I aware of do NOT stack and have specific text for the ones that do. If you cannot produce this quote then wait about 6 hours for when I get home to produce a quote that will support my argument.
Resolving power does not mean it's effects will actually work. Same way you can shoot a bolter at a landraider but it will not do anything.
hyv3mynd wrote: And again "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative".
Notice it gives permission for different powers but not permission for the same power. This is a permissive ruleset and that means you need permission.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yes Rigeld but I want Nos or Hyv to answer that question.
hyv3mynd wrote: And again "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative".
Notice it gives permission for different powers but not permission for the same power. This is a permissive ruleset and that means you need permission.
The permission for the same power to stack is given by the casting and resolving of the second power.
Yes Rigeld but I want Nos or Hyv to answer that question.
Oh i thought you were on my side nvm. In that case, i agree that is why the sentence is there. However following the logic that
The permission for the same power to stack is given by the casting and resolving of the second power.
then the sentence is not needed and back to being worthless.
So i agree that the sentence if giving permission as you suggest for different powers to stack. Now please find where it gives permission for the same power to stack and resolving a power is not the same as stacking.
Nothing is allowed.
A exists
you can do A
B exists expanding A
C exists expanding A
You can do B.
No where does it say you can do C.
Expend warp charge. Test leadership. Resolve power. There's your permission. Nothing stated anywhere prevents the same power from effecting the same unit twice, except specifically prohibited effects.
Like it's been said multiple times "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative". As I tried to illustrate in my comparison.
I have $1 in my pocket (warp charge). I can spend it on food (psychic powers). I am allowed to eat different food (different powers). I can eat apples and oranges for lunch (different powers).
Nothing in there prevents me from eating 2 apples if I buy one and someone else buys one for me.
And another example
I have a graphics card, I buy a second graphics card, they only work together with SLI... otherwise they both exist but do not stack computing power. (SLI is permission in my example)
So i agree that the sentence if giving permission as you suggest for different powers to stack. Now please find where it gives permission for the same power to stack and resolving a power is not the same as stacking.
Where is my permission? I am looking for a quote. Most example of stacking from the same thing especially are not allowed and the ones that are, are very clearly stated that they are allowed.
One side is interpretting "different powers stack"
as identical powers stack,
the other is saying it means identical powers do not stack
the permisson to CAST the same power is NOT permission to STACK that same power,
you can cast stealth on a unit more then once, that does not mean it stacks,
every other codex states permission to stack powers, ie chaos, and even GK, MotT states it stacks, all these things have permission to stack, because it explicitly gives permission to stack (even though you already have permission to CAST)
in every case of stacking permission is given explicitly, since in this case permission to STACK is not given, you cannot stack (not cast, stop confusing the two or you concede your point)
you do not need permission to NOT stack identitcal powers,
you DO need permission to stack identical powers, which is NOT given by being able to CAST the identical power multiple times, stealth can be CAST multiple times, that does NOT mean it STACKs,
hence your permission to CAST is NOT permission to stack
Redundancy matters not when discussing RAW. The "why" would be RAI.
RAW, you can use any power if you follow the rules for timing, targeting, and resolution. RAW, there is no denial of using hammer hand multiple times on the same unit.
Fine RAW, you have +1 strength for casting HH.
You cast it again, you have +1 strength for casting HH.
If you were strength 4, you are now strength 5.
It doesn't say it has an additional +1 strength just that it has +1 strength. So sorry maybe some other psychic powers like Symphony of Pain or Gift of Contagion stack (they directly state that they do) but having +1 strength twice is not the same as having +2 strength. This goes back to having two graphics cards doesn't double your graphics ability for any one situation.
Same idea with armor saves. Just because you have multiple saves, they don't stack unless they directly state they do. You still only use one.
Easysauce - you have already conceded, as you utterly failed to provide one single RULE to back up your position.
Your argument is, strictly, how you would play it / houserule, so please follow the tenets and mark it as such.
Jegsar - casting is done in sequence. I start as S4, and cast. I am now S5. I cast again, and I MUST go to S6 because otherwise I have broken a rule. Indisputable. You ar emissing that the rule never says "unmodified", or "1 or more".
AGain, provide an actual rules based argument that shows that the permission gained in general is overruled. Until you can do so, your argument is invalid as it relies on making a logical leap entirely unsupported by the rules, whereas we are just following the written, clear rules.
yeah kind of pointless saying you have blanket permission to stack every power, when GWRAW specifically states when powers stack with themselves,
resolving a power, is NOT stacking it, again you keep confusing being able to CAST the power, and being able to STACK the power.
you are saying that EVERY single power stacks with every other power, which is NOT in the rule book.
RAW is "different powers stack"
this neither confirms nor denies that identical powers stack, but it is only permission given to stack different powers.
again, you keep using permission to CAST as permission to STACK
you are given permission to cast, you are NOT given permission to stack, since this is a permissive rule book (IE thye do not make a rule prohibiting EVERY action, they make rules permitting actions)
since you have no permission to stack, you cannot stack,
stop saying permission to CAST is the same as permission to stack, because that is not RAW, despite not being able to STACK USR's like stealth, you can still CAST them multiple times (on the same unit to no effect)
cast=/=stack
if you are going to claim that ALL psychic powers stack with all other powers (not just hammer hand)
you need permission from the rules, which as already proven, is not given, you are only given permission to stack different powers.
being given permission to cast powers, is not permission to stack, saying it is is simply wrong
Logic fail there, or simple reading comprehension fail.
1) We did not say we have blanket to stack every power; as we repeeatedly point out some powers deny stacking. Hammerhand, as pointed out and you are incapable of addressing otherwise, does not do so.
"point" refuted.
2) GWRAW states that different powers stack. This is now when "powers" stack, as this is a specific statement. You are making YET ANOTHER logical fallacy, the exact same one you keep getting told about.
"point" refuted
3) Stop repeating something that is. not. the. argument.
4) Please, provide a rules quote. You have entirely failed to do so, and have AGAIN conceded the argument.
simply repeating "I can cast it, therfore I can stack it"
does not make it true,
casting, and stacking are two different things entirely,
not to mention the for stacking arguement has gone from
"GK rules specifically state it can"(false)
to "there is no rule prohibiting it"(there doesnt need to be, there needs to be a rule ENABLING it)
so your arguement keeps skipping around.
RAW is "different powers stack"
therefor, different powers stack,
end of story,
you need permission to stack identical powers
no permission is given in the book, there is no RAW saying "identical powers stack"
the book does not need to say identical powers do not stack to give permission to NOT stack them
the book needs to say identical powers DO stack to give permission to stack them
Argue the point, not just your made up argument. You have constructed a strawman (I didnt argue that GK rules state they stack explicitly - if you disagree do something constructive this thread and quote it) for a start - yet anotehr fallacy
Is there something in the very simple HH rules you find difficult to understand? The rule requires you to add 1 to the models Strength.
The models strength after the first casting is (say) 5, Where is your PERMISSION to restrict the secodn castings effect?
Rule, page and paragraph please. If you continue to make up arguments, fail to provide rules despite the 20th time of asking and just, in general, repeat the same tired argument, that has been refuted at every turn, you're on ignore as it is quite frankly not worth responding.
Youre not arguing RAW. You are simply arguing your own idea of how the rules are written. I
The unit has +1 strength. Well yeah, it's got +1 strength.
All models in the unit ... have +1 strength...
Since +1 strength is not defined by English we can say. All models in the unit have an Object. Cast again, All models in the unit have an Object. It doesn't say, all models in the unit now have 2 objects.
I realize AS specifically states that so since we aren't taking the ruling on armor saves to apply to psychic powers i don't see how we can take "reminder text" (you are saying it is reminder text, i am saying it is rules) on two psychic powers on one page to apply to all of the psychic powers on that same page.
This example comes from the psychic powers in the CSM rulebook. Once again, if you have the BRB in front of you (I don't so I don't know if there is a rule that says they can or cannot but it is very much implied that they cannot without permission based on the CSM codex) please find a quote where it says that they stack.
Argument is that Symphony of Pain and Gift of contagion can stack but Hysterical Frenzy cannot stack since it is missing the text giving it permission to stack.
Permission to cast and resolve something twice is not the same as permission to have the effects stack. There are other cases of casting a psychic power that can resolve but will have no effect at all.
As a side note, while i know we are arguing RAW here when someone asks a question and they aren't rules lawyering they want to know how to play it in there game. If someone posted (before the FAQ) what toughness do I use in a challenge the answer should have been the characters toughness regardless of the errors in writing the book. It's a very obvious error and should be RAW, now it is. In this case the only error is leaving out the word ONLY in a copy and pasted sentence where they only replaced the noun.
And for everyone telling easy to provide a rules quote, PROVIDE A QUOTE THAT EFFECTS OF A RESOLVED POWER MUST DO SOMETHING OR THAT EFFECTS OF THE SAME RESOLVED POWER ALWAYS STACK.
It doesn't say additional. You state a fact. I have a object. Therefore I now have the object. You make the same statement again. For it to be true i must only have that object I do not need a second one of the same object to be true. The object is "+1 strength"
PS right now I am keeping this English. I could move to symbolic logic and truth tables to prove tat I don't need +2 strength to make both of those statement true.
Once again, this is RAW, RAW also said challenges use majority toughness and that wraith guard don't do anything in the game. Also that stupid thing with the Doom and that it doesn't actually cause wounds.
It's implied Doom does wounds, Wraith Guard can still stuff, and you used the other models toughness. RAW also states you have +1 strength not that you add one to your previous strength.
and @Easy, i got this, when you say something like "(I didnt argue that GK rules state they stack explicitly - if you disagree do something constructive this thread and quote it)" it discredits yourself and me by relation as no where does it state GK powers stack. It used to state this in the FAQ but that was removed.
there is no rule ENABLING blanker identical stacking,
just like there is no rule disallowing blanket identical stacking,
the LACK OF A RULE for something, inheritly means you cannot do it.
if you cannot quote the rule that allows you to stack identical powers, then you cannot do it,
non existant rules do not enable anything
so quote me the rule that says "identical powers stack"
not the one that lets me CAST powers, because you can CAST stealth multiple times on a unit, that does not mean stealth stacks
argueing the same, false, pretense that being allowed to cast the same power on a target is blanket permission to STACK that power with itself is logical fallacy.
Permission to cast and resolve something twice is not the same as permission to have the effects stack.
Sure it is.
Are you saying a unit with two lascannons cannot resolve two penetrating hits on vehicles? They both fire different weapons, but weapons can damage vehicles if they hit.
If a strike squad has a warp charge and an attached grand master has a warp charge, they assault, they are both allowed to attempt to use the power and resolve the power if successful. What rule (quote pls) stops that from happening?
what rule quote please allows you to stack the psychic powers?
forgetting that stealth specifically states it doesn't stack with itself.
Effect A states you have stealth.
Effect B states, you have stealth.
Total effect, you have Stealth.
You have +1 strength.
you have +1 strength.
Total effect, you have +1 strength.
It doesn't say unmodified strength but it also doesn't say modified strength. Also whenever anything effects a characteristic you recalculate characteristics as states under multiple modifiers on page 2.
Now you have +1 strength
You have +2 strength
Total effect, you have +1 strength and +2 strength. Resolved you have +3 strength.
Those are not the same, that i two different objects therefore... you must of them both for the statement to be true.
If it said "a unit gains one additional strength at the time of casting" I would agree with your logic. But it just states you have +1 strength.
Another way of wording is, "Add 1 to the CURRENT strength of all models in the unit"
Easysauce - "you are saying permission to do A means you CAN do B "
No, we have not. Again, comprehension fail OR you are just knowingly creating another strawman.
This is very, very clear. On ignore now.
You cast the power, you are now S5. Jegsar - find the rule saying that the second casting does not result in S6. Bear in mind these castings are sequential
Your break down breaks the rule, as you have not added the strength to the model.
Model A is S4+1 = S5
Model A is then S5+1 = S6
You are wrong, remain wrong and have absolutely no ruels argument. Provide one.
In essence - you are not resolving the power before moving on. Provide a rules quote that allows you to do this. You can move to logic if you like, however currently your attempts at abstracting havent actually abstracted the same situation.
You have had plenty of chances to find a rules quote that states you do not resolve one power and then the next, so I assume you cannot find one.
It is not at the time of casting though. It's at the time of calculating.
Senario
Power A, doubles strength
Power B, +1 stregnth
Power C, -1 strength
Base strength 4.
First we cast power B.
Then A
then C
Your logic means we get (4+1)*2-1=9
RAW we get 4*2+1-1=8. (Page 2 BRB)
Now HH states that it gets applied first always so it would be 9 but that doesn't have anything to do what my point.
This calculation is done every time you need to check what the strength is, not when the power is cast.
Now using English and symbolic logic.
At the time of calculating you have the following statements.
1)You have +1 strength.
2)You have double strength.
3)You have -1 strength.
4)You have +1 strength. (lets say you casted power B twice)
Calculation:
base 4.
effect 2, doubles strength.
current 8.
Effect 1, (you have 1+ strength) current 9 (This also makes effect 4 true)
effect 3, -1 strength
current 8.
Easy is saying, it states you can do B...
then is asking where does it state you can do A. If you need permission to do B or C or D or E then you must also need permission to do A.
For an example of a power that does not stack with itself, see the Eldar Werlock power "Enhance". Just for fun, it specifically states it does not stack with itself.
Q: What Psychic Mastery Level is a Warlock? (p27)
A: Mastery Level 0 – Warlocks don’t need Warp Charge to
activate their powers, as they are always on.
The effects of multiple Enhance powers are not cumulative.
Nope, it a "Warlock Power", notice how the farseer entry says "Farseer Psychic Powers" and warlocks just say "Warlock Powers" also that was written in 4th edition.
Frankly if you want to use that to say that they do stack then I would say the 6th ed CSM codex that gives permission to stack would override that and mean that cannot stack as it is newer.
Q. Which Eldar psychic powers are psychic shooting attacks? (p28) A. Destructor, Eldritch Storm and Mind War (though they include a few exceptions to the normal shooting rules, as specified in their description).
Note that Destructor is a Warlock power. If it is not a psychic power as you claim (with no backing), then it cannot be a Eldar psychic power, let alone a PSA.
for the record, I would LOVE it if HH and enfeeble both stacked with themselves, since I have acess to both...
but there is no rule saying they stack, and no one has yet quoted an actual rule to allow stacking
the lack of a rule disallowing something does not mean it is allowed,
the lack of a rule allowing something, does mean it is disallowed.
get the point now?
your models do not move 6" because there is no rule saying they cannot move 7-infinity "s, your models move because there is a rule saying they can move 6"
the burden of proof is not on the non stackers to find a rule dis-allowing the stack,
the burden of proof is on the stackers to find a rule allowing the stack
now find the specific rule that allows you to stack identical powers (not cast, stack, you can cast stealth multiple times, does not mean it stacks, stack=/=cast)
hammerhand is identical to hammerhand, regardless of caster, again, that is not RAW, and just silly, not a logical arguement, that different caster = different power.
again cast does not equal stack, caster does not equal power, you have proven neither point
nos, stop attacking me personally, my reading is fine,
I read the force/fnp rules better then you and the others who were wrong on that, and on this, so lets keep the arguement to the rules, not the person
easysauce wrote: nos, stop attacking me personally, my reading is fine,
I read the force/fnp rules better then you and the others who were wrong on that, and on this, so lets keep the arguement to the rules, not the person
Sorry Happy, I haven't read the Eldar faq in a while. So it's a psychic power.
With a sentence stating that it doesn't stack... some CSM powers state that they do stack and others don't, one of the two is reminder text and the other is a rule. Which or both are rules compared to reminder text?
Anyone have a 4th ed BRB so solve this? With the question is there an explicit rule in the 4th ed BRB ruling one way or another?
As a reminder, Rule Number One is Be Polite. If discussing toy soldiers on Dakka gets your blood pressure up, it's time to take a break and remember this isn't worth it. In the words of The Humungus, Just walk away.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:If we're going to start argue precedents then remember that HH explicitly stacked in 5th.
No doubt, but you could also cast Eldar psychic powers out of transports so rules can change. The specific wording stated that in the FAQ, that is now gone. The only precedent I am looking for is whether or nothing the last sentence in a paragraph is used to change a rule specifically for a power or as reminder text of the general rule. It the Eldar sentence changes a rule, then I put forth that so does the CSM sentences. (it's only on a few of the modifier powers and not all of them) If it were all or non would be more inclined to think of it as reminder text.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Jegsar - why re you not resolving the power fully when it is cast, before moving on? What is giving you permission to wait?
...
Find a rule saying otherwise.
Page 2, Multiple Modifiers, (Not just HH but anything that mods a characteristic) states the order in which the characteristic is affected. First Multiply/Divide, then Add/Subtract, then Set values. This disregards the timing of when a specific power is cast. HH does say it is applied first so that would change the order of the rule but that is the only thing that separates HH from any other psychic power. So if you cast +1 strength, then on my turn i divide your strength by 2, it doesn't divide the +1 by 2, meaning the Strength must be recalculated each time it is checked.
Uhh... Huh? Nos I don't understand what you are saying. He said "why re you not resolving the power fully when it is cast, before moving on? What is giving you permission to wait? "
Once again i'll try to explain...
It does resolve and put the effect "+2 str" on the unit.
But that doesn't make the unit st 6 (assuming base 4) it just means that they have str 4 with an effect "+2 str" (Note this is not from hammerhand, just a made up psychic power called "strength, targeted unit gets +2 strength")
Then I cast something that divides their strength by 2.
Acording to page two the process would be 4/2+2=4 instead of (4+2)/2=3
Note that I can even cast this a player turn apart and get the same effect. That is why it "waits" doesn't wait but the effects have to be recalculated each time they are checked.
Yet Hammerhand is done before multiplication, which includes division.
You cast hammerhand. You add +1S. You are now S5. Please explain how the second casting, which does not specify that it only works against unmodified strength, or that one or more castings of hammerhand give +1S, or ANY of the self limiting phrases used all over 40k - EXPLAIN, using rules, why that unit is not, now, S6
Rules, this time. You have yet to supply any rules.
so you are saying that any psychic power, HH, enfeeble, ect, that grants +/- to a stat, stacks with itself, by virtue of the power simply applying a +/- modifier to the unit...
I could see it that way I guess, and I would prefer to since it obviously gives me a HUGE boost tactics wize, if it hasnt been FAQ'ed by now with all the nid/gk players doing this, maybe I am denying myself a big boost. It just there really isnt clear RAW (clear RAW, im not saying there isnt a rule saying you can cast the same power on a unit, im just saying there is no clear rule saying the same power stacks (or doesnt stack))
ill just play it as they do stack till its FAQ'ed since that seems to be the de'jour now anyway and many nid builds go to tourneys and stack enfeeble up the wazzoo,
as long as everyones on the same page, and people go into tourneys expecting enfeeble/HH/whatever stacking, that is what matters,
Nos, I'm talking about all psychic powers not just hammerhand, notice how I even changed it from +1 to +2 to make it even more different. Rules are on page 2, like i said before. The only difference between hammer hand and iron arm (for example) is the timing of the the addition.
Back to so far the best argument brought up at the moment that we haven't heard a rules opinion on was brought up by Happy, and then I posed the follow question.
Sorry Happy, I haven't read the Eldar faq in a while. So it's a psychic power.
With a sentence stating that it doesn't stack... some CSM powers state that they do stack and others don't, one of the two is reminder text and the other is a rule. Which or both are rules compared to reminder text?
Anyone have a 4th ed BRB so solve this? With the question is there an explicit rule in the 4th ed BRB ruling one way or another?
So i'll ask again, which is reminder text and which is modifying a rule, please quote how you know which is which from either the 6th or 4th ed rule books.
easysauce wrote: so you are saying that any psychic power, HH, enfeeble, ect, that grants +/- to a stat, stacks with itself, by virtue of the power simply applying a +/- modifier to the unit...
Well since math says 1+1 =2 Math says that for us.
easysauce wrote: but there is no rule saying they stack, and no one has yet quoted an actual rule to allow stacking
Again you do not need specific permission, as you have a blanket permission to cast two hammerhand Psychic powers, with different psykers, and target the same unit, and we know, through math, that 4 + 1 = 5 and 5 + 1 = 6.
What you are asking would be like saying "Show me where an infantry unit can fire bolters and missile launchers in the same shooting phase" You will not find that line because you have blanket permission to fire your weapons in the shooting phase, and already have permission without explicitly mentioning all of the weapons you may fire in the shooting phase.
jegsar wrote: Two different psychic powers, Power A says it stacks, power B says it does not stack, which is a rule, and which is a reminder, how do you know?
Two different psychic powers do indeed stack.
This is different than saying 'Two of the same powers do not stack.' There is no restriction like this on Psychic powers. There is a blanket allowance to cast psychic powers on the same target. Find something that restricts this permission.
If you can not then you have to see the flaw in your argument.
The argument on this is going around in a circle. The core of the issue is on page 25 of the GK codex, under the "Hammerhand" entry:
"Note that this Strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for Nemesis Daemon hammers and so forth."
Per the 5th Edition GKFAQ, GW reminded us that their intent was for Hammerhand to apply before multipliers, and that the bonus could stack with multiple applications.
In 6th Edition, we have the "Multiple Modifiers" rule on page 2 of the BRB that tells us the order of opperation for applying modifiers, addition/subtraction first, multipliers second, replacement values last. Per "Hammerhand", the Strength bonus is applied before any additions, subtractions, multipliers, or replacement values; i.e. Strength 4 becomes Strenght 5.
On page 32 of the BRB, we are reminded that psychic powers are special rules, and with special rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefits of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
On page 68 of the BRB, under "Resolve Psychic Power", we are again reminded that:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
It would seem that while 5th Edition allowed for power stacking, 6th Edition does not unless otherwise stated. We can all agree that "Hammerhand" and "Might of Titan" are different psychic powers, and therefore per the rules do stack (which the "Might of Titan" entry points out in any case). What we seem to be able to agree on is whether or not "Hammerhand" cast by a Grand Master stacks with "Hammerhand" cast by a Librarianstacks with "Hammerhand" cast by a unit of Brotherhood Psykers. The note that Hammerhand's Strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers does not seem to override the repeated reminders that benefits from the same power or special rule do not stack (unless stated otherwise).
The only conclusion I can see is that in 6th Edition, until otherwise noted by GW, Hammerhand no longer stacks with itself.
jeffersonian000 wrote: In 6th Edition, we have the "Multiple Modifiers" rule on page 2 of the BRB that tells us the order of opperation for applying modifiers, addition/subtraction first, multipliers second, replacement values last.
This is wrong.
The order is Multipliers (multiplication/division) THEN addition / subtraction. Not the other way round.
On page 32 of the BRB, we are reminded that psychic powers are special rules, and with special rules:
Also wrong.
Page 32 says "a model might get Special rules as the result of Psychic Powers".
The powers aren't special rules, but they might grant them. A power that grants Relentless would be an example of this, not one that grants +1 Str.
easysauce wrote: Finally thank you jefferson, i knew I wasnt imagining things... as much as I WANT str 10 striking at initiative GKs, AND rad grenades and enfeeble....
Both points of his argument were flawed.
the special rule is not +1str, that is the modifier imparted by the special rule/psychic power
+1str is the EFFECT of the special rule "hammer hand"
Hammer Hand is a power, not a special rule.
+1 Str is the effect of the power.
Neither are a Special Rules.
"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 [/u. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage, by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost [u]to its strength."
also pg 32 "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
also pg 32 "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,"
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"
psychic powers fall into the category of ability, and whenever means whenever, not just "whenever you feel like it"
also, psyker, is listed under the USR page 41 as a SPECIAL RULE
"psyker: a model with THIS SPECIAL RULE is a psyker."
now lets see some quoted pages that refute that please, everything else is HYWPI
you are not quoteing RAW 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"
psychic powers fall into the category of ability, and whenever means whenever, not just "whenever you feel like it"
also, psyker, is listed under the USR page 41 as a SPECIAL RULE
"psyker: a model with THIS SPECIAL RULE is a psyker."
easysauce wrote: you are not quoteing RAW 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"
psychic powers fall into the category of ability, and whenever means whenever, not just "whenever you feel like it"
I'm directly quoting RAW. I'm afraid you're misreading it.
The rule on page 32 states a Psychic power might grant Special Rules. Not all do. They are not themselves Special Rules.
easysauce wrote: also, psyker, is listed under the USR page 41 as a SPECIAL RULE
"psyker: a model with THIS SPECIAL RULE is a psyker."
And?
Psyker is a Special Rule. It allows a model to use Psychic powers. That doesn't mean all Psychic powers are suddenly Special Rules.
Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
I could make an argument since psyker is a special rule anything granted by it cannot stack unless explicitly stated.
Looked up the Warlock power, It is indeed a rule sentence, there are no general rules stated for psychic powers in 4th. I am still leaning towards all of the sentences being very specific and not just reminders.
I also looked up stacking in the 6th ed BRB, In pretty much every situation I can find, if something stacks it directly states that it does stacks. Including and excluding psychic powers.
RAW fact psyker is a special rule,its on pg 41 listed as a USR
which is fully explained on pg 66-69
do you get it now? pgs 66-69 on the psyker "special rule" include every power they cast
all those details under pg66-69, are part of the psyker special rule
so you cannot argue powers are not special rules, they are different effects of the same special rule "psyker" the powers are all included in the USR psykers
quote ONE thing in the book to support your argument,
Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
I could make an argument since psyker is a special rule anything granted by it cannot stack unless explicitly stated.
Psyker is a Special Rule.
It allows the use of Psychic powers.
There is no RAW argument that this would magically make Psychic Powers count as Special Rules.
The Special Rules section even says Psychic Powers might grant Special Rules, but definitely doesn't say the powers themselves are Special Rules.
"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 [/u. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage, by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost [u]to its strength."
also pg 32 "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
also pg 32 "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,"
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"
psychic powers fall into the category of ability, and whenever means whenever, not just "whenever you feel like it"
also, psyker, is listed under the USR page 41 as a SPECIAL RULE
"psyker: a model with THIS SPECIAL RULE is a psyker."
RAW fact psyker is a special rule,its on pg 41 listed as a USR
which is fully explained on pg 66-69
do you get it now? pgs 66-69 on the psyker "special rule" include every power they cast
all those details under pg66-69, are part of the psyker special rule
easysauce wrote: RAW fact psyker is a special rule,its on pg 41 listed as a USR
which is fully explained on pg 66-69
do you get it now? pgs 66-69 on the psyker "special rule" include every power they cast
all those details under pg66-69, are part of the psyker special rule
so you cannot argue powers are not special rules, they are different effects of the same special rule "psyker" the powers are all included in the USR psykers
How many Psychic powers are listed in the pages you've just quoted?
None. Not one.
I can very easily argue that Powers are not Special Rules.
The Special Rules section supports this.
No powers are listed in the "Psykers" section, which as you say is a special rule.
There is nothing to support the argument that Powers are Special Rules, but there is support they aren't.
No powers are listed in the "Psykers" section, which as you say is a special rule.
There is nothing to support the argument that Powers are Special Rules, but there is support they aren't.
again, you quote no actual rules,
and in fact every power is covered under the pg 66 psykers section, or you couldn't cast them, it includes the rules for resolving every psychic power,
sorry but you are not quoting RAW,
you are ignoring several actual rules
quoting more of the rule book
RAW 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 [/u. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage, by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost [u]to its strength."
also pg 32 "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
also pg 32 "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,"
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"
psychic powers fall into the category of ability, this rule is a catch all for everything whenever means whenever, not just "whenever you feel like it"
also, psyker, is listed under the USR page 41 as a SPECIAL RULE
"psyker: a model with THIS SPECIAL RULE is a psyker."
RAW fact psyker is a special rule,its on pg 41 listed as a USR
which is fully explained on pg 66-69
do you get it now? pgs 66-69 on the psyker "special rule" include every power they cast
all those details under pg66-69, are part of the psyker special rule
I have, several times, I don't need to re-quote every time.
"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 [/u. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage, by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost [u]to its strength."
Does not apply. Explained earlier.
also pg 32 "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
also pg 32 "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,"
Thank you for supporting my argument. This states Powers might grant special rules, not that they are special rules.
I'll stop there, you're just repeating points that have been disproven. Read back the last two pages please.
you opinion on HYWPI, but you use pg 67 to justify casting a codex power multiple times, but then contend your power is not part of the special rule those rules are a part of.
only special rules can modify the rules (be it stats, or whatever, pg 32 is clear on this)
if its not a special rule, then you dont have permission to modify stats or gain abilities
and again, im all for str 10 grey knights, but the rules dont back up your theory, they DO say
again, you quote no actual rules,
and in fact every power is covered under the pg 66 psykers section, or you couldn't cast them, it includes the rules for resolving every psychic power,
sorry but you are not quoting RAW,
you are ignoring several actual rules
quoting more of the rule book
RAW 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 [/u. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage, by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost [u]to its strength."
also pg 32 "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
also pg 32 "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,"
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"
psychic powers fall into the category of ability, this rule is a catch all for everything whenever means whenever, not just "whenever you feel like it"
also, psyker, is listed under the USR page 41 as a SPECIAL RULE
"psyker: a model with THIS SPECIAL RULE is a psyker."
RAW fact psyker is a special rule,its on pg 41 listed as a USR
which is fully explained on pg 66-69
do you get it now? pgs 66-69 on the psyker "special rule" include every power they cast
all those details under pg66-69, are part of the psyker special rule
psyker is 100% a special rule, pg 41 says this RAW set in stone
and it is explained on pgs 66-69, that whole section is all special rules.
rigeld2 wrote: Psyker is a special rule.
You have failed to demonstrate that the Psyker special rule is adding +1 STR to a unit.
no i have not, casting powers is covered under the psyker special rule.
casting powers is a special rule, everything that uses those special rules from 66-69 is a special rule
Casting powers is a special rule. Cite a rule showing that transfers down the line to the powers.
What you're saying is that the Psyker special rule is giving the buff when that's demonstrably untrue.
How many Psychic powers are listed in the pages you've just quoted?
None. Not one.
I can very easily argue that Powers are not Special Rules.
The Special Rules section supports this.
No powers are listed in the "Psykers" section, which as you say is a special rule.
There is nothing to support the argument that Powers are Special Rules, but there is support they aren't.
Powers aren't special rules but they are an effect of a special rules.
I can easily argue that everything under special rules stacks unless explicitly stated. (This has been previously quoted and you said you don't want it repeated) Just to point out it says benefit of a
special rule.
Psyker is in that section, blessings is in pages 66-69. psychic powers state that they are blessings/maledictions and therefore follow all of the rules for them.
Now it says no special rules stack.
The sentence in blessings
Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative...
has a purpose allowing different psychic powers to stack that would not to otherwise.
Look that sentence that had no purpose 8 pages ago now has a purpose.
Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66.
means starting on page 66 "psykers" are the full rules for this special rule.
Everything under a rule is covered by all the rules from the high level of inheridence unless specfically overruled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote:Psyker is a Special Rule. 100% agree.
Why should everything under a Special Rule also be a Special Rule?
Furious Charge is a Special Rule.
Is the +1 Str granted by Furious Charge also a special rule? Can you prove it if you think it is?
Stealth is a Special Rule.
Does this mean that cover saves are now Special Rules?
By your logic yes.
Outflank is a Special Rule.
Does that mean Deployment is now a Special Rule?
According to you, yes.
Psyker is a Special Rule.
So what makes Powers a Special Rule, when even the Special Rules section disagrees with you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: [everything that uses those special rules from 66-69 is a special rule,
Prove it.
This is what your argument hangs on. Can you prove this?
rigeld2 wrote: Psyker is a special rule.
You have failed to demonstrate that the Psyker special rule is adding +1 STR to a unit.
no i have not, casting powers is covered under the psyker special rule.
casting powers is a special rule, everything that uses those special rules from 66-69 is a special rule
Casting powers is a special rule. Cite a rule showing that transfers down the line to the powers.
What you're saying is that the Psyker special rule is giving the buff when that's demonstrably untrue.
Doesn't matter, it is a benefit of a special rule., what allows seperate powers to stack is that sentence i just gave meaning to
rigeld2 wrote: Psyker is a special rule.
You have failed to demonstrate that the Psyker special rule is adding +1 STR to a unit.
no i have not, casting powers is covered under the psyker special rule.
casting powers is a special rule, everything that uses those special rules from 66-69 is a special rule
Casting powers is a special rule. Cite a rule showing that transfers down the line to the powers.
What you're saying is that the Psyker special rule is giving the buff when that's demonstrably untrue.
ok finally,
you admit psyker is a special rule
where by pg 32 "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benifit of a special rule more then once"
the special rule is psyker, the benefit, weather it is hammer hand, +1str, or whatever, is of that special rule
rigeld2 wrote: Casting a power is a benefit of a special rule.
The buff the power causes is not the benefit of the special rule - it's the benefit of the power.
Seconded.
There is still no evidence that Powers are Special Rules, only evidence that they are not.
rigeld2 wrote: Casting a power is a benefit of a special rule.
The buff the power causes is not the benefit of the special rule - it's the benefit of the power.
except thats not RAW
thats just HYWPI
RAW put all "resolve psychic power" part, which includes benefits, under the psykers special rule.
now at least you admit casting the power is a result of a special rule "psykers
, resolving the power's benefits, is all a result of the special rule psykers as well, despite you not acknowledging that
which as you have admitted is in fact a special rule (not that you need to admit it, pg 41 says so)
you cannot resolve any psychic power without the special rule "psyker" so any benifits of it are due to the special rule, and cant be stack by RAW
rigeld2 wrote: Casting a power is a benefit of a special rule.
The buff the power causes is not the benefit of the special rule - it's the benefit of the power.
except thats not RAW
thats just HYWPI
RAW put all "resolve psychic power" part, which includes benefits, under the psykers special rule.
casting the power, resolving the power's benefits, is all part of the special rule psykers,
Untrue.
Page 41 says that the special rule is Psyker. Psyker is defined on page 66. It also is the title for the chapter, so I understand the confusion - so Manifesting a Psychic Power is a benefit of a Psyker, but the actual buff is not.
which as you have admitted is in fact a special rule (not that you need to admit it, pg 41 says so)
Not that I ever denied it... So I'm not sure why you're touting this as a victory...
The power is a benefit from the psyker rule, everything that power does is therefore (even indirectly or directly doesn't matter) a benefit of that special rule.
so if psychic powers are not special rules, then why do they get to bend/break normal rules?
because only special rules can do that,
if they are not special rules, then they cant break/bend the rules like powers do
most special rules have about a paragraph to expain them,
the pysker special rule has a chapter to explain it, because it has so many special rules in it.
the only reason its not in the same pages as the other USR is because it takes 4 pages, and its the only one to do so, so to keep the alphabetical listing of the other USR's they gave it its own chapter,
it is still a USR,
every single power you cast follows the special rules for "psyker"
every benifit is a result of those special rules, as well as the rules for the power, and the benifits dont stack as stated on pg 32
The power is a benefit from the psyker rule, everything that power does is therefore (even indirectly or directly doesn't matter) a benefit of a special rule (Pskyer).
jegsar wrote: The power is a benefit from the psyker rule, everything that power does is therefore (even indirectly or directly doesn't matter) a benefit of that special rule.
So every wound caused in the first round of an assault from Adrenal Gland Nids is a benefit of a special rule?
Assaulting out of a Land Raider means that all wounds are caused as a benefit of a special rule?
Edit: also, posting the same thing over and over doesn't help your argument.
No it doesn't but since it was ignored as were multiple of my last posts it did get your attention.
And yes by the definition of benefit, all those statements you said are true. Example, Benefit of an internet connection is keeping in touch with family, though in fact the only direct benifit of the internet is a few extra connections.
Remember it doesn't actually talk about stacking it actually states
cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once.
jegsar wrote: No it doesn't but since it was ignored as were multiple of my last posts it did get your attention.
But you still haven't proved it.
Without proof, it's opinion not RAW.
A Special Rule grants the benefit of a power.
Why does the benefit of a power count as the benefit of the rule that grants the power?
What's allowing this inheritance?
What isn't allowing the inheritance?
That is the same as you saying that powers stack,
Neither are stated in the BRB but the definition of benefit is stated in the dictionary.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was able to bring meaning to the sentence that everyone thought was a reminder, this makes sense, it falls in to place now.
jegsar wrote: What isn't allowing the inheritance?
That is the same as you saying that powers stack,
Neither are stated in the BRB but the definition of benefit is stated in the dictionary.
Benefit is mentioned in the BRB, but isn't defined. So yes a dictionary definition is fine.
Inheritance isn't mentioned in the BRB. Why are you applying it?
Psychic powers are not special rules. They are abilities. They are no different from abilities like Anrakyr's Mind in the Machine ability. They just have other restrictions on who can use them and how often/when they can be used.
Being a Psyker does not make a model a special rule. It allows a model to use certain abilities, following the restrictions for using those abilities (Psychic test/warp charges).
It's like saying a weapon having the Blast type (listed under the USR section) makes the weapon a special rule, when it is not and never has been. Unless Games Workshop has been writing codices wrong for years.
jegsar wrote: No it doesn't but since it was ignored as were multiple of my last posts it did get your attention.
Maybe, I dunno, give some time before you feel your posts were ignored? My response was quoting the first time you posted that, not the second.
And yes by the definition of benefit, all those statements you said are true. Example, Benefit of an internet connection is keeping in touch with family, though in fact the only direct benifit of the internet is a few extra connections.
And by what rule are you assuming indirect benefits are what that is talking about?
Remember it doesn't actually talk about stacking it actually states
cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once.
And? Remember, I never disagreed with that so pointing it out seems... Useless. It's like me reminding you that the word benefit is not in the BRB.
One of the benefits of the psyker special rule is the effects caused by the psychic powers.
As far as iridescence, that has nothing to do with my previous statement but there is Inheritance everywhere in games workshop. Look at the Zealot rule for example, if you want more examples that are even less direct i can find some.
Powers without a type.
If a psychic power does not have a type, the rules for using it will be clearly expressed within its entry.
Hammerhand clearly does not state that its effects are cumulative
Other psychic powers clearly state that they are.
There is no permission in the rule book that allows it to be cumulative, you can cast whatever you want all day long but it has to specifically state cumulative in order to stack.
All new psychic powers are following this trend of specifying, GK codex is not that old and obviously show signs of the same specification if you look at MotT.
@Nos by vomiting out the same response for every person that puts time and effort into their post giving multiple sources I will take your next copy and pasted response as conceding/playing by house rules.
Aglobalthreat wrote: but it has to specifically state cumulative in order to stack.
Citation required.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jegsar wrote: One of the benefits of the psyker special rule is the effects caused by the psychic powers.
So being a Psyker means I automatically benefit from my powers?
Wow, that's cool.
Or - wait - perhaps the benefit is the ability to cast powers, and the powers are at best an indirect benefit.
As far as iridescence, that has nothing to do with my previous statement but there is Inheritance everywhere in games workshop. Look at the Zealot rule for example, if you want more examples that are even less direct i can find some.
That inheritance has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion and you know it. Nice try though.
How about an example that is directly relevant to the discussion at hand.
@rigeld2 there is no citation required, the BRB is a set of rules that tells you what is allowed to be done in the game. The only part allowing cumulative falls into the category of different powers.
Everything else says that the psychic power will clearly state how it is to be used.
Hammerhand does not say cumulative like all other powers that are meant to be cumulative in 6th Ed and has not been FAQd to say so.
If you want S6 so bad use MotT and HH you can still get there.
Aglobalthreat wrote: @rigeld2 there is no citation required, the BRB is a set of rules that tells you what is allowed to be done in the game. The only part allowing cumulative falls into the category of different powers.
So what is denying permission to resolve the powers?
Actually yes, you benefit from being a psyker for Deny the witch for one. Yout benefit from any powers cast that can you cast because you are a psyker.
Indirect benefit at least, and that sill is a benefit.
Just like you said, where is inheritances? Where does it clearly state that HH can stack, note that other psychic powers that can stack clearly state they can stack.
jegsar wrote: Where does it clearly state that HH can stack, note that other psychic powers that can stack clearly state they can stack.
In the absence of something saying they cannot stack, the bolded is irrelevant.
HH stacks because, like other psychic powers, there is permission to resolve the power.
jegsar wrote: Where does it clearly state that HH can stack, note that other psychic powers that can stack clearly state they can stack.
HH stacks because, like other psychic powers, there is permission to resolve the power.
What are you talking about? Where is that permission to stack (other then the non existent FAQ.)
BRB Page 69 wrote:Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry.
Aglobalthreat wrote: @rigeld2 there is no citation required, the BRB is a set of rules that tells you what is allowed to be done in the game. The only part allowing cumulative falls into the category of different powers.
So what is denying permission to resolve the powers?
That's an absurd way to look at it, the rule book tells what is specifically allowed. By your logic I could place my vehicles however I want on the table (upside down on their side), it doesn't say I can't
And I'm sure there are plenty other things I could possible do since the rulebook doesn't say I can't
Aglobalthreat wrote: @rigeld2 there is no citation required, the BRB is a set of rules that tells you what is allowed to be done in the game. The only part allowing cumulative falls into the category of different powers.
So what is denying permission to resolve the powers?
That's an absurd way to look at it, the rule book tells what is specifically allowed. By your logic I could place my vehicles however I want on the table (upside down on their side), it doesn't say I can't
And I'm sure there are plenty other things I could possible do since the rulebook doesn't say I can't
That's not even close to what I'm saying.
I have permission to manifest a power. Agreed?
I have permission to expend a warp charge. Agreed?
I have permission to declare a target. Agreed?
I have permission to roll for my Psychic Test. Agreed?
Assuming I pass that, and am not targeting an enemy unit, I have permission to resolve the power. Agreed?
I have permission to manifest a power. Agreed?
I have permission to expend a warp charge. Agreed?
I have permission to declare a target. Agreed?
I have permission to roll for my Psychic Test. Agreed?
Assuming I pass that, and am not targeting an enemy unit, I have permission to resolve the power. Agreed?
Where is the permission to accumulate the benefit of Hammerhand? Not clearly defined in the rules for the power.
Rulebook doesn't specifically give permission to same powers being cumulative.
Sure you can cast it as many times as allowed but no where does it say it accumulates.
I will give into the fact that it also does not say it doesn't accumulate. But looking at how powers are being clearly defined as to how they are to be used in 6th edition until it is FAQd I would say it does not stack.
And on a side note it was exactly what you are saying,
So what is denying permission to resolve the powers?
What is denying me the permission to place my vehicle however I want? There I worded it more like what you were saying.
I have permission to manifest a power. Agreed?
I have permission to expend a warp charge. Agreed?
I have permission to declare a target. Agreed?
I have permission to roll for my Psychic Test. Agreed?
Assuming I pass that, and am not targeting an enemy unit, I have permission to resolve the power. Agreed?
Where is the permission to accumulate the benefit of Hammerhand? Not clearly defined in the rules for the power.
Funny, when I read the power it says to add +1Str to the unit. That's pretty clearly defined.
Rulebook doesn't specifically give permission to same powers being cumulative.
Irrelevant.
Sure you can cast it as many times as allowed but no where does it say it accumulates.
Sure it does. The Hammerhand power says to add +1 STR. There's no rule saying not to add that STR.
I will give into the fact that it also does not say it doesn't accumulate. But looking at how powers are being clearly defined as to how they are to be used in 6th edition until it is FAQd I would say it does not stack.
That's a RAI or HYWPI argument - I don't care one way or the other as far as that goes.
And on a side note it was exactly what you are saying,
So what is denying permission to resolve the powers?
What is denying me the permission to place my vehicle however I want? There I worded it more like what you were saying.
It depends on what you mean in that question. During deployment? The fact that the rules specify you can only deploy in your deployment zone.
In other words, it is not exactly what I'm saying. I have permission to resolve the power. You're saying that the power cannot resolve. What is denying permission to resolve the power? In a permissive rule set once you are granted permission you must have something deny permission to remove the ability to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jegsar wrote: There is nothing saying that you need to benefit to resolve a power.
Actually there is - the power says to add 1 STR. If I have not added 1 STR I have not resolved the power.
Cite the rule that denies the resolution of the power.
Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
+1 strength is a benefit, regardless if it's direct or indirect. Therefore it cannot benefit more then once.
Also you may have missed or at least not responded to the part about "the models in the unit have +1 strength" cast this 50 times they still only have +1 strength. That is RAW at least. Yes that logic is as stupid as the doom not causing wounds but it's still RAW.
Now if you want to go back even further, Show me where it says this sentence is only a reminder and not giving permission for different powers to stack.
Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.
If you follow RAW then sentence has a purpose and it is to ALLOW DIFFERENT psychic powers to stack. Note some psychic powers check the CSM dex specfically state that they can stack while others in the dex don't include that. All this means when playing a game HH or enfeeble do not stack.
Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
+1 strength is a benefit, regardless if it's direct or indirect. Therefore it cannot benefit more then once.
That only applies to special rules (PP. 32-43) Notice how hammerhand is not listed...
Notice how HH is a benefit from psyker, so it can only benefit once, Also that is only part of what i said.
Oh and the rules for the special rule psyker starts on page 66, (which covers blessings and psychic powers)
You could call it an indirect benefit but it is without a doubt some kinda of benefit.
Now I realize no one likes answering this question but, what is the purpose of
Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.
That combined with how the CSM dex is written and only a few of the modifier spells have a rule that states that they do stack, is enough for me to read that the same psychic cannot stack without permission.
Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
+1 strength is a benefit, regardless if it's direct or indirect. Therefore it cannot benefit more then once.
That only applies to special rules (PP. 32-43) Notice how hammerhand is not listed...
the list says on pg 32 it is not all encompassing, and that there are plenty of other abilities that fall under special rules, if its all those entries beside wargear, powers, abilities, those are called special rules. they are listed on the model as options, and have an appropriate entry containing the special rules and their benifits.
it also says psychic powers are a source of special rules, amongst other things like terrain, ect
there are plenty more special rules in each codex. hammer hand is one of many special rules not found in the BRB
what is a "special rule"?
GW says on pg 32 that it is any "weapon or ability used to bend or break the rules" includes a lot of stuff, likely most things have at least one special rule.
psychic powers are a subtext of a special rule, psyker, as stated on pg 41 in the USR section (which 100% do not stack),
your permission to resolve that psychic power is in a special rules description, that makes it part of that special rule. Everything to do with psychic powers takes place in the special rule chapter devoted to "psykers" from pg 66-69
every weapon, or ability, with a special rule, is just that, a special rule. there is a chapter on special rules for weapons, but do you argue they are not special rules, and now stack?
the +1str benefit from furious charge is a benefit from a ability special rule. (cannot stack with itself, even though in the rule FC it doesnt say you cant stack it, because its a special rule)
the +1str benefit from a power axe is a weapon special rule benefit (also doesnt stack with itself, because its a special rule)
the + 1str benefit from hammer hand, is also a benefit from a ability special rule (hammer hand), (like all other special rules does not stack)
You could call it an indirect benefit but it is without a doubt some kinda of benefit.
Now I realize no one likes answering this question but, what is the purpose of
Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.
That combined with how the CSM dex is written and only a few of the modifier spells have a rule that states that they do stack, is enough for me to read that the same psychic cannot stack without permission.
This was asked a few times but never answered.
The benefits of a Special Rule don't stack.
Why are you saying the benefit of the benefit of a Special Rule don't Stack. What rule is allowing you to apply this inheritance. Page number please.
It can be demonstrated that Psychic Powers are not Special Rules. They can grant them, but are not themselves Special Rules.
easysauce wrote: the +1str benefit from a power axe is a weapon special rule benefit (also doesnt stack with itself, because its a special rule)
It doesn't stack because you can only attack with one weapon.
+1 Str is not a Special Rule.
The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.
Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.
jegsar wrote: The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.
So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?
Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.
That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.
jegsar wrote: The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.
So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?
The English language, If A always causes B, and B always causes C, A always causes C. This logic applies both to your questions about benefits and inheritance. It can also be written for psychics... A can cause B, B always causes C. When A causes B, A causes C. When a psyker casts hammerhand, the psyker blesses the units with +1 strength. Therefore C is a benefit of A when A causes B. (I have previously defined benefit)
Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.
That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.
Not sure what you mean by 2/3s, I just know that unless the statement is inserted for zero value add, then it must have a purpose. Following my logic, that benefits cannot stack unless explicitly stated, it gives value add to the sentence. Further evidence is support by CSM codex page 71 where Symphony of pain and Gifts of Contagion contain text stating the effects are cumulative however Hysterical Frenzy does not. So my opinion is there is a reason the sentence is in there and your opinion is the sentence doesn't matter.
While i agree it's not 100% clear, to anyone that applies logic it makes it very clear.
Section 1 states psychic powers cannot stack.
Section 2 states that different psychic powers can stack.
CSM dex states that 2 specific psychic powers can stack with themselves.
Most general to most specific is how it is presented along with all other GW rules.
When checking to see what something falls under you check in reverse order.
Does the psychic power cover it, no check up to the next level.
Do rules for blessings cover it?
Is it a different power?
Is there anywhere that states i can do this?
All the way back up to psyker, where it states benefits don't stack.
So no I am reading that particular sentence as giving different psychic powers permission to stack, I don't however see a sentence that give the same psychic power to stack other then in the effects of a power in the CSM dex which certainly isn't the general rule otherwise it wouldn't need to be listed there. Notice how i following English, and basic symbolic logic, i game meaning to the sentence. Just me but if they bothered to put something there, even if it's a little tricky even obscure to figure out the reason that there normally is a reason.
So now youre claiming that HammerHand is a special rule?
Really - that is the level this has devolved to?
Given it specifically states that psychic powers *can* grant special rules, not *do*, you know this is not true.
Your claim is absurd, as you are claiming you cannot benefit from a special rule more than once; meaning (using your broken logic chain) that a psyker can only cast HH once, ever. After all, if Hammerhand IS a benefit of a special rule (it isnt, because your logic is flawed) then trying to cast it twice (in a game, or ever) would mean the psyker was "benefitting" from it more than once - which is not allowed
Psyker is a special rule. NOt everything that happens as a result of this special rule is a benefit, otherwise you are claiming that PotW is a benefit...
PotW is not an aid to you so it is not a benefit, I stated the definition of a benefit earlier.
Frankly I agree, RAW you can't benefit from psyker more then once, sounds about as stupid as them leaving out proper toughness values for challenges. Oh wait that happened, My logic stands as RAW regardless of how stupid the effect would be,
What is absurd is that they include many sentences that you are all just calling reminders, phrased differently, across different books, that all lead to the same thing.
Now if you can show me anywhere (other then a 4th ed codex, which also wasn't a psychic power back then) any quotes eluding to stating psychic powers are allowed to stack, then in a permissive system i must disagree.
It really does take into account for 99% of possible situations with explicit statements of what are you are allowed to do. No where does it say you can stack psychic powers.
It doesn't tell you that you're allowed to shoot the same unit more than once. It doesn't have to, though, because there's already a blanket permission to shoot at stuff.
And, as nos said, under your interpretation you're only ever allowed to benefit from HH once a game because any further casts would be additional benefits from the same power, which you claim is not allowed.
You'd also only ever get the mastery level bonus to DtW! once, as subsequent uses of said rule would mean you get additional benefits from the same rule.
jegsar wrote: The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.
So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?
The English language, If A always causes B, and B always causes C, A always causes C. This logic applies both to your questions about benefits and inheritance. It can also be written for psychics... A can cause B, B always causes C. When A causes B, A causes C. When a psyker casts hammerhand, the psyker blesses the units with +1 strength. Therefore C is a benefit of A when A causes B. (I have previously defined benefit)
If you try to apply Absolute Inheritance in this fashion, the game would break across the board. And still there is no reason why you would apply inheritance. Everything does not cause inheritance, so why use it if not told to? The rulebook doesn't say to apply it everywhere, so why do so?
Also A is only given permission to cause B if you want to go that route.
A can only cause B, B can cause C. A can never cause C.
Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.
That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.
Not sure what you mean by 2/3s, I just know that unless the statement is inserted for zero value add, then it must have a purpose. Following my logic, that benefits cannot stack unless explicitly stated, it gives value add to the sentence. Further evidence is support by CSM codex page 71 where Symphony of pain and Gifts of Contagion contain text stating the effects are cumulative however Hysterical Frenzy does not. So my opinion is there is a reason the sentence is in there and your opinion is the sentence doesn't matter.
While i agree it's not 100% clear, to anyone that applies logic it makes it very clear.
Sorry should have been more clear.
There have been 3 possible interpretations of that sentence.
1). Different powers stack, no mention of same powers. Permission is granted to cast blessings, nothing restricts the number of times.
2). Different powers can be interpreted as different castings of the same power. If you have 2 identical cars, they are still different cars.
3). Different powers stack, therefore all others don't.
2 of the 3 interpretations support stacking. Personally I find the logic of 3 flawed, and support 2.
Please feel free to add more interpretations if I've missed any.
Section 1 states psychic powers cannot stack.
Section 2 states that different psychic powers can stack.
CSM dex states that 2 specific psychic powers can stack with themselves.
Most general to most specific is how it is presented along with all other GW rules.
When checking to see what something falls under you check in reverse order.
Does the psychic power cover it, no check up to the next level.
Do rules for blessings cover it?
Is it a different power?
Is there anywhere that states i can do this?
All the way back up to psyker, where it states benefits don't stack.
So no I am reading that particular sentence as giving different psychic powers permission to stack, I don't however see a sentence that give the same psychic power to stack other then in the effects of a power in the CSM dex which certainly isn't the general rule otherwise it wouldn't need to be listed there. Notice how i following English, and basic symbolic logic, i game meaning to the sentence. Just me but if they bothered to put something there, even if it's a little tricky even obscure to figure out the reason that there normally is a reason.
Following the nature of the permissive rule set
You're given permission to cast blessings. I'm sure we all agree on that. So we now have carpet permission on blessing units.
So we cast a blessing. Then we cast the same blessing from a different source. Can we cast blessings? Yes. Is there any restrictions implied on blessing the same unit twice? No.
jegsar wrote: The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.
So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?
The English language, If A always causes B, and B always causes C, A always causes C. This logic applies both to your questions about benefits and inheritance. It can also be written for psychics... A can cause B, B always causes C. When A causes B, A causes C. When a psyker casts hammerhand, the psyker blesses the units with +1 strength. Therefore C is a benefit of A when A causes B. (I have previously defined benefit)
If you try to apply Absolute Inheritance in this fashion, the game would break across the board. And still there is no reason why you would apply inheritance. Everything does not cause inheritance, so why use it if not told to? The rulebook doesn't say to apply it everywhere, so why do so?
Also A is only given permission to cause B if you want to go that route.
A can only cause B, B can cause C. A can never cause C.
If i hire someone to kill you, I still caused your death even if I didn't pull the trigger. It might even be a direct cause, but it's at least indirect. The only thing in the book this breaks is the rule we are specifically talking about.
Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.
That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.
Not sure what you mean by 2/3s, I just know that unless the statement is inserted for zero value add, then it must have a purpose. Following my logic, that benefits cannot stack unless explicitly stated, it gives value add to the sentence. Further evidence is support by CSM codex page 71 where Symphony of pain and Gifts of Contagion contain text stating the effects are cumulative however Hysterical Frenzy does not. So my opinion is there is a reason the sentence is in there and your opinion is the sentence doesn't matter.
While i agree it's not 100% clear, to anyone that applies logic it makes it very clear.
Sorry should have been more clear.
There have been 3 possible interpretations of that sentence.
1). Different powers stack, no mention of same powers. Permission is granted to cast blessings, nothing restricts the number of times.
2). Different powers can be interpreted as different castings of the same power. If you have 2 identical cars, they are still different cars.
3). Different powers stack, therefore all others don't.
2 of the 3 interpretations support stacking. Personally I find the logic of 3 flawed, and support 2.
Please feel free to add more interpretations if I've missed any.
I'll revise number 1 to: "Different powers are allowed to stack." My question was WHY is it here? What is the value add of it? Why is this stated specifically
The effects of multiple Gift of Contagion arr cumulative
and
Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative.
but it is not stated under HYSTERICAL Frenzy? (all on page 71 from CSM dex.)
Section 1 states psychic powers cannot stack.
Section 2 states that different psychic powers can stack.
CSM dex states that 2 specific psychic powers can stack with themselves.
Most general to most specific is how it is presented along with all other GW rules.
When checking to see what something falls under you check in reverse order.
Does the psychic power cover it, no check up to the next level.
Do rules for blessings cover it?
Is it a different power?
Is there anywhere that states i can do this?
All the way back up to psyker, where it states benefits don't stack.
So no I am reading that particular sentence as giving different psychic powers permission to stack, I don't however see a sentence that give the same psychic power to stack other then in the effects of a power in the CSM dex which certainly isn't the general rule otherwise it wouldn't need to be listed there. Notice how i following English, and basic symbolic logic, i game meaning to the sentence. Just me but if they bothered to put something there, even if it's a little tricky even obscure to figure out the reason that there normally is a reason.
Following the nature of the permissive rule set
You're given permission to cast blessings. I'm sure we all agree on that. So we now have carpet permission on blessing units.
So we cast a blessing. Then we cast the same blessing from a different source. Can we cast blessings? Yes. Is there any restrictions implied on blessing the same unit twice? No.
This is the only slightly unclear part and they are obviously not meant to stack. The logic was explained in section one about multiple benefits and how permission is strictly given for different powers and different entities to stack but explicit permission is not given for the same to stack. In fact no where in GW does anything stack with itself. (a unit firing is not a good example of this and it gives permission, "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." you can read the rest of the shooting phase to see now this works out.)
jegsar wrote: If i hire someone to kill you, I still caused your death even if I didn't pull the trigger. It might even be a direct cause, but it's at least indirect. The only thing in the book this breaks is the rule we are specifically talking about.
These word games serve no purpose, they can be written to serve any argument.
If I drive a friend to work, and he then kills you, did I kill you? You're applying an absolute of 'yes I did'.
Does everything suffer from from this form of absolute inheritance? No, so why are you applying it? What rule tells you to?
'll revise number 1 to: "Different powers are allowed to stack." My question was WHY is it here? What is the value add of it? Why is this stated specifically
The effects of multiple Gift of Contagion arr cumulative
and
Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative.
but it is not stated under HYSTERICAL Frenzy? (all on page 71 from CSM dex.)
The first two are Maledictions that cause multiple effects, the third is a Blessing that has a single effect. Maybe thats why they felt the need to add that note.
Just to correct your quote, my version at least says "Note that the effects of multiple...." It's a note, not a unique rule.
This is the only slightly unclear part and they are obviously not meant to stack. The logic was explained in section one about multiple benefits and how permission is strictly given for different powers and different entities to stack but explicit permission is not given for the same to stack. In fact no where in GW does anything stack with itself. (a unit firing is not a good example of this and it gives permission, "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." you can read the rest of the shooting phase to see now this works out.)
Why is explicit permission needed? Any particular reason?
As it stands we have permission to stack, and nothing to restrict it. You say this is obviously wrong, but where is the rule?
jegsar wrote: If i hire someone to kill you, I still caused your death even if I didn't pull the trigger. It might even be a direct cause, but it's at least indirect. The only thing in the book this breaks is the rule we are specifically talking about.
These word games serve no purpose, they can be written to serve any argument.
If I drive a friend to work, and he then kills you, did I kill you? You're applying an absolute of 'yes I did'.
Does everything suffer from from this form of absolute inheritance? No, so why are you applying it? What rule tells you to?
'll revise number 1 to: "Different powers are allowed to stack." My question was WHY is it here? What is the value add of it? Why is this stated specifically
The effects of multiple Gift of Contagion arr cumulative
and
Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative.
but it is not stated under HYSTERICAL Frenzy? (all on page 71 from CSM dex.)
The first two are Maledictions that cause multiple effects, the third is a Blessing that has a single effect. Maybe thats why they felt the need to add that note.
Just to correct your quote, my version at least says "Note that the effects of multiple...." It's a note, not a unique rule.
This is the only slightly unclear part and they are obviously not meant to stack. The logic was explained in section one about multiple benefits and how permission is strictly given for different powers and different entities to stack but explicit permission is not given for the same to stack. In fact no where in GW does anything stack with itself. (a unit firing is not a good example of this and it gives permission, "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." you can read the rest of the shooting phase to see now this works out.)
Why is explicit permission needed? Any particular reason?
As it stands we have permission to stack, and nothing to restrict it. You say this is obviously wrong, but where is the rule?
Indirectly yes and if i knew i would be an accessory to murder...
The same logic you are using that makes you assume you can stack is the same logic that allows me to do there. There is nothing preventing it.
1) So does the Designer "NOTE" that defines a rule about the definition of same marines in the CSM dex.
2) The second sentence does not say it's a note.
3) Hysterical frenzy has multiple effects like the other two in question and therefore unless stated otherwise would be treated the same way as them.
You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.
As far as i know, there is nothing you can do in 40k without explicit permission.
There is also the entire thing that I stated before, about "the unit has +1 strength", If you apply that statement once or 100 times, it does the same thing.
jegsar wrote: Indirectly yes and if i knew i would be an accessory to murder...
The same logic you are using that makes you assume you can stack is the same logic that allows me to do there. There is nothing preventing it.
Still pointless word games. Not everything suffers this level of inheritance, so why apply it without anything telling you to?
1) So does the Designer "NOTE" that defines a rule about the definition of same marines in the CSM dex.
2) The second sentence does not say it's a note.
Not sure what you're saying here, can you be clearer please?
3) Hysterical frenzy has multiple effects like the other two in question and therefore unless stated otherwise would be treated the same way as them.
Sorry I wasn't clear. It only applies a single benefit per casting (eg +1 Str on the roll of a 2), as opposed to the others (-1 A and Shrouded on the roll of a 1).
You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.
You assume there isn't permission, but nothing backs this.
As far as i know, there is nothing you can do in 40k without explicit permission.
This has been gone through so many times. Permission is granted, yet you want a second permission, for the same thing.
Also if permission (not just permission, but explicit permission apparently) is needed for everything, where is the explicit permission to apply your inheritance theory?
There is also the entire thing that I stated before, about "the unit has +1 strength", If you apply that statement once or 100 times, it does the same thing.
jegsar wrote: Indirectly yes and if i knew i would be an accessory to murder...
The same logic you are using that makes you assume you can stack is the same logic that allows me to do there. There is nothing preventing it.
Still pointless word games. Not everything suffers this level of inheritance, so why apply it without anything telling you to?
Why would you assume it stacks without anything telling you to? Same logic, at least mine is correct regardless of how much you call it a game.
1) So does the Designer "NOTE" that defines a rule about the definition of same marines in the CSM dex.
2) The second sentence does not say it's a note.
Not sure what you're saying here, can you be clearer please?
Sure, Note, can mean notice. Number 1 is refering to where it says "Designers Note" in regards to a rule, and the only place that rule is stated. A note came still be a rule.
As far as number 2, One power does say "note" the other doesn't, so how do you explain that one.
3) Hysterical frenzy has multiple effects like the other two in question and therefore unless stated otherwise would be treated the same way as them.
Sorry I wasn't clear. It only applies a single benefit per casting (eg +1 Str on the roll of a 2), as opposed to the others (-1 A and Shrouded on the roll of a 1).
That doesn't make sense to me, it's talking about multiple castings, not multiple effects of the same casting
You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.
You assume there isn't permission, but nothing backs this.
this argument is just he said he said, there isn't permission either way and this is a permissive rule set.
As far as i know, there is nothing you can do in 40k without explicit permission.
This has been gone through so many times. Permission is granted, yet you want a second permission, for the same thing.
I've shown it as a benefit from a special rule,therefore at least one way it is not allowed. There is also things to indicate this though they are more RAI then RAW.
There is also the entire thing that I stated before, about "the unit has +1 strength", If you apply that statement once or 100 times, it does the same thing.
This is false. Very much so.
Show me where this is false. You have a gun. You have a gun. You still only have 1 gun. Now if you say the follow statements are cumulative, "You have a gun", "You have a gun" then you would have 2 guns however it only states that about different powers, Not the same power.
You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.
You assume there isn't permission, but nothing backs this.
this argument is just he said he said, there isn't permission either way and this is a permissive rule set.
That's a lie and you know it. It's been proven that there is permission to cast and resolve the power. You haven't yet shown anything that denies that permission.
You can cast a resolve the power, no argument. You do not have permission for the effects of that power to stack. The resolution of the power just states "All the models in the unit have +1 strength". Well when you cast that again, and make that statement again, they do have +1 strength.
As I said the part is going around in circles. Please look at another part of the discussion,
jegsar wrote: You can cast a resolve the power, no argument. You do not have permission for the effects of that power to stack. The resolution of the power just states "All the models in the unit have +1 strength". Well when you cast that again, and make that statement again, they do have +1 strength.
They have one strength higher than they did before? Or one higher than base?
If the latter, why are you only considering the base strength?
As I said the part is going around in circles. Please look at another part of the discussion,
... Why? You have no defense and nothing that denies permission, so just look at a different thing you can pretend matters?
And you have no permission that states it does. Neither have permission directly states and the other parts of my argument is what shows you don't have permission. So scrutinize them instead of something you don't have anything written for to back up either.
As far as +1 strength. Where does it say, "when this resolves add 1 strength to the unit."? It says "all the models in the unit have +1 strength".
I am not saying what that +1 is being added to just that once you have "+1 strength" having that statement again doesn't do anything. It's not a verb telling you do something you can do again it's a statement that they have something that they already have (once you go to cast it again).
jegsar wrote: And you have no permission that states it does.
So what gives permission to resolve the first power cast?
Neither have permission directly states and the other parts of my argument is what shows you don't have permission. So scrutinize them instead of something you don't have anything written for to back up either.
I'd rather point out your failure at the base and watch the whole house of cards come tumbling down.
I am not saying what that +1 is being added to just that once you have "+1 strength" having that statement again doesn't do anything. It's not a verb telling you do something you can do again it's a statement that they have something that they already have (once you go to cast it again).
The power is cast. The unit has +1 STR. This means the unit has a 5 STR.
The power is cast again. The unit has +1 STR. According to you the unit still has a 5 STR. How does 5 + 1 = 5?
umm the rules state the power resolves. even the second power resolves, if you disagree that any powers can resolve i will find something to show you that they do.
Did you find a quote giving permission? if not then you can't say anything about your second point.
The power is cast, the models in the unit have an effect on them that states "have +1 strength". That is not the same as adding one to their strength.
jegsar wrote: The power is cast, the models in the unit have an effect on them that states "have +1 strength". That is not the same as adding one to their strength.
The actually have 2 effects that each say "have +1 strength". You're just refusing to consider the second one and I have no idea why.
You are strength 4.
You have +1 strength.
You have +1 strength.
What strength are you?
5, why?
When you have +1 strength and you state you have +1 strength again, you already have +1 strength.
You have a apple. To make that statement true you must have a apple so now you do.
You have a apple. You already have a apple, why do you need a second 1?
Now if you prefix those statements with "the following statements are cumulative, then you would have 2 apples. That statement is made about different psychic powers but not the same.
and the other half? You have a apple, therefore you get an apple, you have an apple, cool you have an apple.
If it said unmodified strength then it could not be combined with anything else that stated unmodified strength. That would change it's interactions with different psychic powers.
it doesn't say here, have an apple. it says "You have an apple" or rather "All models in the unit have..." I know English is confusing with each word having multiple meanings, and commas changing those meanings.
jegsar wrote: it doesn't say here, have an apple. it says "You have an apple" or rather "All models in the unit have..." I know English is confusing with each word meaning multiple things.
You start with an apple.
Someone comes by and gives you an apple.
Someone comes by and gives you an apple.
That is not what the quotes states though. if it said upon resolution of the power add one to the strength i would agree but that isn't what it states. It states that the models have something and the actual resolution of the power is at the end of the assault phase when the bonus goes away as a side note.
jegsar wrote: That is not what the quotes states though. if it said upon resolution of the power add one to the strength i would agree but that isn't what it states. It states that the models have something
The unit has one more apple.
The unit has one more apple.
If they start with 4 apples, how many apples do they have after the previous 2 sentences?
and the actual resolution of the power is at the end of the assault phase when the bonus goes away as a side note.
When does the power resolve? At the end of the casting or at the end of it's effects? If it's the end of casting the effect doesn't need to do anything like one of your previous statements said.
The unit has "+1 strength"
what does +1 strength mean to me it means +1 of it's previous strength. it if already has +1 strength then you make the statement the unit has +1 strength, that statement is true and nothing in the game needs to change to keep it true.
jegsar wrote: When does the power resolve? At the end of the casting or at the end of it's effects? If it's the end of casting the effect doesn't need to do anything like one of your previous statements said.
The power resolves after its cast. The resolution if Hammerhand is that the unit has +1 STR.
The unit has "+1 strength"
what does +1 strength mean to me it means +1 of it's previous strength. it if already has +1 strength then you make the statement the unit has +1 strength, that statement is true and nothing in the game needs to change to keep it true.
