80634
Post by: gearheart99
would powers like hammer hand stack if cast by both a squad and an IC that has joined it? also how long do these spells last? is it still there next assault phase when I cast it again?
69848
Post by: ninjafiredragon
i do believe it does not stack. I was pretty sure it said that in the dex. it lasts till the begining of your next turn, which includes your opponents assult phase.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Using the rules for multiple modifiers, hammerhand stacks
60813
Post by: Brometheus
Hammerhand stacks.. As for the question in the subject- Nope, normally powers do not.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
gearheart99 wrote:would powers like hammer hand stack if cast by both a squad and an IC that has joined it?
Hammer Hand, yes. Other powers, maybe, the rules are really poorly written and could go one way or the other.
also how long do these spells last? is it still there next assault phase when I cast it again?
Most Blessings last for 1 game turn, the description of the power should tell you how long it lasts.
65717
Post by: Elric Greywolf
In the case of HH, how it works is clearly laid out on p25 of Codex: GK. Be sure to read the errata, as they've updated the wording for 6e.
67122
Post by: Aijec
"bonus's and penalties from different blessing are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1"
Why don't things stack?
60944
Post by: Super Ready
The confusion lies in what you count as "different". Are two castings of a particular blessing from different psykers different because they're different castings, or the same because they're the same blessing?
Here's the last thread on it, which you'll notice eventually got locked after no solid conclusion was reached for either side:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/553624.page
67122
Post by: Aijec
Not to rumble things up again but WOULDN'T they stack?
No matter which interpretation of the word "different" you take theres no restriction.
64332
Post by: Bausk
Becase if different is different named powers, and by all indication it is, then powers of the same name do not stack when cast from two psykers unless it has express permission to be cumulative in the powers rule. Hammerhand being a 5th ed power that is not errata 'd to be a blessing is not a blessing however so it uses its own rules from its dex with the faq.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Bausk wrote:Becase if different is different named powers, and by all indication it is, then powers of the same name do not stack when cast from two psykers unless it has express permission to be cumulative in the powers rule.
Citation needed.
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) does not mean the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative.
Is there something saying that the same powers do not stack?
Because Page 2 says that, like basic math, 4+1+1=6
64332
Post by: Bausk
Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
61083
Post by: Stormbreed
DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Becase if different is different named powers, and by all indication it is, then powers of the same name do not stack when cast from two psykers unless it has express permission to be cumulative in the powers rule.
Citation needed.
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) does not mean the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative.
Is there something saying that the same powers do not stack?
Because Page 2 says that, like basic math, 4+1+1=6
This. Use the rules as we have them and they stack IMHO.
64332
Post by: Bausk
I will just point out that page two is not the dispute, the many examples of intent of what different for blessings/maledictions indicates the lack of default cumulation of the power before multiple modifiers are considered.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Bausk wrote:Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)
There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)
There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.
Probably because there are literally no rules that say the same psychic powers do stack. Permissive ruleset your side of the argument have never shown permission for powers to stack.
Most 6th Ed powers definitely don't stack because they contain verbiage that prevents stacking. Hammerhand only stacks if you can prove you have multiple modifiers from multiple castings by proving that the same power cast on the same unit multiple times is resolved cumulatively.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason. Probably because there are literally no rules that say the same psychic powers do stack. Permissive ruleset your side of the argument have never shown permission for powers to stack. Except, you know, page 2 which proves that 4+1+1=6 or 4-1-1=2... Most 6th Ed powers definitely don't stack because they contain verbiage that prevents stacking. Hammerhand only stacks if you can prove you have multiple modifiers from multiple castings by proving that the same power cast on the same unit multiple times is resolved cumulatively.
You do have multiple modifiers, each casting of Hammerhand gives +1 Str. 4+1+1 = 6 according to the BRB. Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.
I think you're reading the wrong book. In my rulebook page 2 makes no mention of psychic powers stacking. Just modifiers. So do you have any actual rules to support stacking or are you still clinging to the "it doesn't say I can't" argument?
50012
Post by: Crimson
Oh, this again! Now we can all pretend that we have not done this two or three times already, and repeat all the arguments again!
Here's mine: most powers say something like 'whilst this power is in effect* [modifiers and/or special rules happen.]' The condition is the power being in effect, and if this refers to the power in general, instead of an individual casting of it, it would mean that further castings would not make the power being any more in effect. Either the power is in effect, or it isn't, number of castings doesn't matter.
* (Hammerhand doesn't, so it might actually be meant to stack.)
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should. I think you're reading the wrong book. In my rulebook page 2 makes no mention of psychic powers stacking. Just modifiers. So do you have any actual rules to support stacking or are you still clinging to the "it doesn't say I can't" argument?
Ahh but we do have permission. So it actually says we can stack them. We have permission to cast Hammerhand on a unit from the brotherhood of psykers that is the unit itself. (This gives them a +1 Strength) We also have permission to cast hammerhand from an IC that has joined the unit on the unit. (This gives them a +1 Strength) Now we look at page 2 for guidance on what to do when we have +1 and +1, it says that we add them together, so Str4+1+1 does in fact = 6
68289
Post by: Nem
And then someone says possibilities of applying multiple instances of the same effects still requires permission for that effect to be considered cumulative to be able to use the modifier rules, then someone else comes back and says that is not needed, then someone else chimes in with something completely irrelevant which no one answers - before we get back to going around this very familiar roundabout which draws no conclusion.
Personally I'm nominating 'same psychic powers stacking?' for most awaited FAQ just to end the suffering, I mean, don't faq everything before we have a good while to debate it but this one really has gotten old. Direct the poster OP to a previous thread, note it's unresolved and let people make up their own minds (ok sure Hammerhand is a deffinate, probably is good to mention that). I don't think there's been anything new on the last few 15 page threads on the subject
64332
Post by: Bausk
Again, hanmerhand is not a blessing. It's. a fith ed power with specific permission in its codex to stack, further backed by the grey knight faq i believe. Older powers are not bound by the 6th ed restrictions unless errata'd or faq'd to be a sub type.
And again page two is not in dispute, multiple modifiers are fine and dandy but they do notcome into the discussion unless the power has permission to stack. In the previous thread there are cited references of some powers having specific permission in thier rules while others do not. This coupled with the only logical interpretation of what different powers means clearly indicates that powers of the same name do not stack unless they have express permission in thier rules.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Bausk wrote:Again, hanmerhand is not a blessing. It's. a fith ed power with specific permission in its codex to stack, No, there is no explicit permission in the codex that says hammerhand stacks with hammerhand. further backed by the grey knight faq i believe. Older powers are not bound by the 6th ed restrictions unless errata'd or faq'd to be a sub type. And again page two is not in dispute, multiple modifiers are fine and dandy but they do notcome into the discussion unless the power has permission to stack. In the previous thread there are cited references of some powers having specific permission in thier rules while others do not. This coupled with the only logical interpretation of what different powers means clearly indicates that powers of the same name do not stack unless they have express permission in thier rules. Well we have permission to cast the same power twice on a single target, therefore page 2 does actually come into the discussion.
68355
Post by: easysauce
yeah its getting real old to see people apply the modifiers rule, without having permision to use it.
round and round it goes
make sure you all are ACTUALLY emailing the GW faq,
and adding something to the effect of
GW loses a lot of business to people who quit because of rules arguments. answering 5 questions a month is a cost effective way to placate and retain customers. I find it LAZY that there is not a team dedicated to officially updating the faqs on a regular basis, to the degree that they need to be.
64332
Post by: Bausk
Ah that's right, might of titans has he mention of cumulative effects. No matter, still not a Blessing so is not bound by the restriction of blessings.
52446
Post by: Abandon
Aijec wrote:Not to rumble things up again but WOULDN'T they stack?
No matter which interpretation of the word "different" you take theres no restriction.
It is the nature of a permissive rule set. They state some things as being cumulative such as 'different psychic powers'. The logical conclusion being things they do not state as being that way, are not cumulative. Just as, only the weapons of the Rapid Fire type are Rapid Fire Weapons. If they do not say it is X, then it is not X.
DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)
There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.
Denial is not needed where no permission is given.
DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)
There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.
Probably because there are literally no rules that say the same psychic powers do stack. Permissive ruleset your side of the argument have never shown permission for powers to stack.
Except, you know, page 2 which proves that 4+1+1=6 or 4-1-1=2...
Most 6th Ed powers definitely don't stack because they contain verbiage that prevents stacking. Hammerhand only stacks if you can prove you have multiple modifiers from multiple castings by proving that the same power cast on the same unit multiple times is resolved cumulatively.
You do have multiple modifiers, each casting of Hammerhand gives +1 Str. 4+1+1 = 6 according to the BRB.
Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.
Without permission to be cumulative the effect will not increase by any successive additions. Page 2 is irrelevant as it only allows modifiers to stack. First prove the powers effects stack, then we can use page 2 to handle the additional modifiers that are caused by those effects.
DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Again, hanmerhand is not a blessing. It's. a fith ed power with specific permission in its codex to stack,
No, there is no explicit permission in the codex that says hammerhand stacks with hammerhand.
further backed by the grey knight faq i believe. Older powers are not bound by the 6th ed restrictions unless errata'd or faq'd to be a sub type.
And again page two is not in dispute, multiple modifiers are fine and dandy but they do notcome into the discussion unless the power has permission to stack. In the previous thread there are cited references of some powers having specific permission in thier rules while others do not. This coupled with the only logical interpretation of what different powers means clearly indicates that powers of the same name do not stack unless they have express permission in thier rules.
Well we have permission to cast the same power twice on a single target, therefore page 2 does actually come into the discussion.
Permission to use and resolve the power twice ≠they are cumulative
Modifiers stack ≠'Same' powers stack
Then you say 'yes it does' and then proceed to not prove as much because... those points literally have nothing to do with each other.
Then you say 'but you have to resolve the power as it is described' which is correct.
Then you say 'so they both resolve and have their effect' which is also correct.
Then, 'so they stack', which is incorrect... literally having nothing to do with the previous two points.
Remember, if you cause any additional modifier with a second use you are already treating the effects cumulatively.
Cumulative = "increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions" -Oxford Dictionary
You cannot increase the quantity, degree of force of the powers effects on the unit by successive additions of the same power. That means no additional modifiers.
Note: Hammerhand if i recall is a special case and does have permission to be cumulative but in general, as far as standard blessing/maledictions, that is not the norm.
Here ends my summation of several previous threads and the exchange between DR and myself contained therein.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote:DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.
And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason. Denial is not needed where no permission is given.
Well it is a good thing we have permission to cast hammerhand twice on the same unit, once from the unit itself and once from the IC librarian attached to the unit... Now find the restriction. Permission to use and resolve the power twice ≠they are cumulative Modifiers stack ≠'Same' powers stack Then you say 'yes it does' and then proceed to not prove as much because... those points literally have nothing to do with each other. Then you say 'but you have to resolve the power as it is described' which is correct. Then you say 'so they both resolve and have their effect' which is also correct. Then, 'so they stack', which is incorrect... literally having nothing to do with the previous two points.
(Emphasis mine) If both the underlined is agreed with, I do not see how you can think they do not stack. We "have to resolve the power as it is described' which is correct." and "'so they both resolve and have their effect' which is also correct." their effect is a +1 Strength. We have permission to cast and resolve hammerhand twice on the same unit, these both grant a +1 modifier, as per Page 2 they stack, unless there is a restriction...
52446
Post by: Abandon
Because the ability to add more 'effect' does not mean the effect has the 'cumulative' quality that allows things to 'add up' or 'stack' as the world of gamers might call it.
Essentially, the ability to add more of X does not say anything about the results of adding more X.
IE, the desired effect of this statement(power), which is to convey information to (effect) the reader(target), is not cumulative. That means, though I can say it many times and it will have it's effect each time, I will never convey any additional information with it through successive uses on the same individual. Knowledge(modifiers) does act cumulatively(per page 2  ) and knowledge can be gained from information(effects), the information(effect) in this statement does not so no additional information(effect) is communicated(applied) to the reader(target). However, I will try anyways just to prove a point.
IE, the desired effect of this statement(power), which is to convey information to (effect) the reader(target), is not cumulative. That means, though I can say it many times and it will have it's effect each time, I will never convey any additional information with it through successive uses on the same individual. Knowledge(modifiers) does act cumulatively(per page 2  ) and knowledge can be gained from information(effects), the information(effect) in this statement does not so no additional information(effect) is communicated(applied) to the reader(target). However, I will try anyways just to prove a point.
IE, the desired effect of this statement(power), which is to convey information to (effect) the reader(target), is not cumulative. That means, though I can say it many times and it will have it's effect each time, I will never convey any additional information with it through successive uses on the same individual. Knowledge(modifiers) does act cumulatively(per page 2  ) and knowledge can be gained from information(effects), the information(effect) in this statement does not so no additional information(effect) is communicated(applied) to the reader(target). However, I will try anyways just to prove a point.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Now we look at page 2 for guidance on what to do when we have +1 and +1
You've missed the permission for two casting of the same power to be resolved cumulatively until you have that you don't have +1 and +1 so page 2 is irrelevant. So again with the circular argument... Now either cite the rules that state that the same power is resolved cumulatively or concede.
Well it is a good thing we have permission to cast hammerhand twice on the same unit, once from the unit itself and once from the IC librarian attached to the unit...
Now find the restriction.
Permission to cast twice is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Give that permission. Rather than relying on the assumption that the power is cumulative to prove the power is cumulative. How can you not see that is a logical fallacy?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Guys, we've already done this, we already know that no one side will be able to convince the other 2. Why are you even bothering?
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
As a reminder, Hammerhand does not have permission to be cumulative with multiple casting in 6th edition. The only time Hammerhand did have permission to stack was at the end of 5th, due to a BRB FAQ that allowed all powers with modifiers to stack. That specific permission did not carry over to 6th as of the very first 6th edition FAQ, which did not include similar verbiage. In essence, the argument is caused by a hold over from 5th that is not adequately defined nor adequately restricted in 6th.
6th has a theme of modifiers from different abilities being cumulative, as seen in the Special Rules section and the Psychic Powers section. What is glaringly lacking is specific verbiage stating modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability from different sources yet used on the same target being cumulative. Given the nature of a permissive rule set, one side of the argument believes that unless specific permission is given, powers are not cumulative with each casting regardless of source. The other side of the argument believes sufficient permission is given via permission to resolve and the rules for applying multiple modifiers.
This would be thread #3 covering the same argument. My recommendation is that barring an FAQ or errata from GW addressing this specific issue, we each need to discuss it with our opponent in a friendly game or follow the ruling of a Tournament Organizer if in a tournament setting.
SJ
76982
Post by: Tonberry7
p68 BRB "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative".
If you're casting Hammerhand twice, you're casting the same psychic power twice. It doesn't say that the effects of identical powers are cumulative, so no, it doesn't stack.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:Permission to cast twice is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Give that permission. Rather than relying on the assumption that the power is cumulative to prove the power is cumulative. How can you not see that is a logical fallacy?
It really is,
Permission to cast is permission to resolve the casted power on the target.
if you have two instances of Hammerhand you are told to apply +1 to the Str from two things.
Page 2 kicks in and we get 4+1+1=6.
But your side will never understand this.
Tonberry7 wrote:p68 BRB "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative".
If you're casting Hammerhand twice, you're casting the same psychic power twice. It doesn't say that the effects of identical powers are cumulative, so no, it doesn't stack.
Classic mistake.
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) does not mean the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Tonberry7 wrote:p68 BRB "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative".
If you're casting Hammerhand twice, you're casting the same psychic power twice. It doesn't say that the effects of identical powers are cumulative, so no, it doesn't stack.
Classic logical fallacy called excluded middle. Try looking it up.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I'd say it's more denying the antecedant.
50012
Post by: Crimson
Maybe it is an exception that proves the rule?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
It really is,
Permission to cast is permission to resolve the casted power on the target.
if you have two instances of Hammerhand you are told to apply +1 to the Str from two things.
it really isn't. You have two castings but you only have a single +1 modifier as the two castings aren't cumulative.
Do you not see that your argument is circular? You assume Psychic Powers are cumulative and use that to prove that psychic powers are cumulative...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:It really is,
Permission to cast is permission to resolve the casted power on the target.
if you have two instances of Hammerhand you are told to apply +1 to the Str from two things.
it really isn't. You have two castings but you only have a single +1 modifier as the two castings aren't cumulative.
Citation needed.
See now that is not true at all, you have two +1 modifiers, one from each casting of hammerhand.
What says they are not cumulative? since we have permission to cast twice and then have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each Hammerhand casting...
Do you not see that your argument is circular? You assume Psychic Powers are cumulative and use that to prove that psychic powers are cumulative...
Not circular at all. I am saying that we have permission to cast and resolve a single power on a single unit (This is backed by the rules on page 67/68). There needs to be a restriction which your side has not yet found.
We have permission to cast the psychic power (And following the rules for psychic powers that involves resolving each psychic power)
"The Psyker must now pass a Psychic test to see if he can control the power he's calling upon. A Psychic test is a Leadership test...If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved"(67)
We have permission to resolve each psychic power. resolving involves math, specifically a +1 Str, and since we are permitted to resolve both powers, two +1 Str's, we look at page 2 for how to handle this.
Asd your side has not found any restrictions we must assume that it does not exist and powers such as hammerhand will stack. Thank you and good day.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Citation needed.
See now that is not true at all, you have two +1 modifiers, one from each casting of hammerhand.
What says they are not cumulative? Since we have permission to cast twice and then have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each Hammerhand casting...
Permissive ruleset. You need the citation. What says I can't smash your models up with a hammer? We do not have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting. If we had permission for the same power to resolve cumulatively there would be no argument.
Not circular at all. I am saying that we have permission to cast and resolve a single power on a single unit (This is backed by the rules on page 67/68). There needs to be a restriction which your side has not yet found.
We have permission to cast the psychic power (And following the rules for psychic powers that involves resolving each psychic power)
"The Psyker must now pass a Psychic test to see if he can control the power he's calling upon. A Psychic test is a Leadership test...If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved"(67)
We have permission to resolve each psychic power. resolving involves math, specifically a +1 Str, and since we are permitted to resolve both powers, two +1 Str's, we look at page 2 for how to handle this.
Asd your side has not found any restrictions we must assume that it does not exist and powers such as hammerhand will stack. Thank you and good day.
Resolving does not in math (because that is not a thing but let's assume you actually meant Maths which is a thing) resolve involves putting the power into effect. Resolving the powers effects. Now are powers cumulative eith themselves if you have any actual rules saying they are then we have multiple modifiers name page 2 becomes relevant. Please provide permission for the same power to resolve cumulatively with itself.
20963
Post by: Kommissar Kel
FlingitNow wrote:Citation needed.
See now that is not true at all, you have two +1 modifiers, one from each casting of hammerhand.
What says they are not cumulative? Since we have permission to cast twice and then have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each Hammerhand casting...
Permissive ruleset. You need the citation. What says I can't smash your models up with a hammer? We do not have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting. If we had permission for the same power to resolve cumulatively there would be no argument.
This response is fallacious, Permissions to do the thing are cited within the quoted post; your response is "where are your permissions?" Permissions are shown and you are not supplying Specific denials to that argument.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Kommissar Kel wrote: FlingitNow wrote:Citation needed. See now that is not true at all, you have two +1 modifiers, one from each casting of hammerhand. What says they are not cumulative? Since we have permission to cast twice and then have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each Hammerhand casting... Permissive ruleset. You need the citation. What says I can't smash your models up with a hammer? We do not have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting. If we had permission for the same power to resolve cumulatively there would be no argument. This response is fallacious, Permissions to do the thing are cited within the quoted post; your response is "where are your permissions?" Permissions are shown and you are not supplying Specific denials to that argument.
Exactly what Kel said. I have shown permission, I have cited where we are grantet permission. Permissive ruleset is on my side in this one, not yours Fling.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
This response is fallacious, Permissions to do the thing are cited within the quoted post; your response is "where are your permissions?" Permissions are shown and you are not supplying Specific denials to that argument.
In which case I apologise please point to the citation for the sane power to resolve cumulatively because I missed it. Page and para would be enough.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:This response is fallacious, Permissions to do the thing are cited within the quoted post; your response is "where are your permissions?" Permissions are shown and you are not supplying Specific denials to that argument.
In which case I apologise please point to the citation for the sane power to resolve cumulatively because I missed it. Page and para would be enough.
You need to show a rule that restricts this, or all of these rules apply.
We have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting on page 67 "If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved"
So we know we can target a unit, take a psychic test, and if passed resolve its effects. We are also permitted to cast hammerhand again on the same target...
Right there is the citation.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
We have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting on page 67 "If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved"
Sorry I've read page 67 over and over but can't find the line that states when resolving the same psychic power more than once on a unit it is resolved cumulatively.
The power is resolved we agree. If you have multiple modifiers then you can use page 2 to prove they stack. However I'm still not seeing permission to resolve multiple instances of the samepower cumulatively. So please post that rule or concede that your circular argument doesn't hold as it is circular.
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote:This response is fallacious, Permissions to do the thing are cited within the quoted post; your response is "where are your permissions?" Permissions are shown and you are not supplying Specific denials to that argument.
In which case I apologise please point to the citation for the sane power to resolve cumulatively because I missed it. Page and para would be enough.
You need to show a rule that restricts this, or all of these rules apply.
We have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting on page 67 "If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved"
So we know we can target a unit, take a psychic test, and if passed resolve its effects. We are also permitted to cast hammerhand again on the same target...
Right there is the citation.
No, you have shown permission to apply their effects. Unless those effects are cumulative it will only apply the modifier one time.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
And modifiers are cumulative, unless told otherwise. We are told the effect is a modifier, no further pernmission is needed.
However, nothing will change in this thread to the last one, as the permission is shown over and over and over, yet this mysterious additional permission, written nowhere in any rules, and created out of thin air, is created to show that an additional step is needed.
4+1+1 = 6, as you ar told on page 2. Deny this permission, or concede.
25220
Post by: WarOne
What does everyone think the word "different" from page 68 means in a RAW context to their argument?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Guys, why are we arguing whether or not we have specific permission to resolve Enfeeble on an already Enfeeble'd unit when I can't even find specific permission to resolve it on a model with two arms and two legs?
52446
Post by: Abandon
nosferatu1001 wrote:And modifiers are cumulative, unless told otherwise. We are told the effect is a modifier, no further pernmission is needed.
However, nothing will change in this thread to the last one, as the permission is shown over and over and over, yet this mysterious additional permission, written nowhere in any rules, and created out of thin air, is created to show that an additional step is needed.
4+1+1 = 6, as you ar told on page 2. Deny this permission, or concede.
I again hesitate to speak directly about hammerhand as I lack the proper dex so if your going to continue asking me about that power in particular I'll need to know what it says exactly. The BRB does imply that some powers are permitted to stack. On that note, it may be better to discuss generalities about maledictions/blessing using a non-codex specific power with no special permissions.... like Enfeeble
Would that be an acceptable shift for you nos?
WarOne wrote:What does everyone think the word "different" from page 68 means in a RAW context to their argument?
This one took us a while but it can be pieced together from different parts of the book.
"A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn" Pg 67, BRB- Manifesting Psychic Powers, second paragraph.
From this we can determine that different casting of the same power are the same.
"It should be noted that different Psykers in the same army can have the same psychic power(s)." Pg 418, BRB- right side, end of the second paragraph.
From this we can determine that powers of the same name possessed by different Psykers are the same.
This narrows down the options for powers to be 'different' down to powers with different names. Automatically Appended Next Post: PrinceRaven wrote:Guys, why are we arguing whether or not we have specific permission to resolve Enfeeble on an already Enfeeble'd unit when I can't even find specific permission to resolve it on a model with two arms and two legs?
I just have lots of down time at my job and I'm board at work right now
64332
Post by: Bausk
Nos you first need permission to accumulate powers before modifiers can be applied. In the case of Hammerhand the rule book tells us older codexes will have powers that are different to 6th ed powers, in this case we use thier rules. As Hammerhand has no express denial to be cumulative it may be cumulative just like it was in 5th.
As for Blessings/Maladictions they are not cumulative unless they have permission written into the powers individual rule.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
WarOne wrote:What does everyone think the word "different" from page 68 means in a RAW context to their argument?
That, functionally, it operates purely as a reminder whenever a power ends up in a modifier , as we already have rules that state the accumulation - or the normal rules of maths, in essence - operates here.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
as we already have rules that state the accumulation
Citation nowhere does it state that the same power resolves cumulatively with itself.
49616
Post by: grendel083
FlingitNow wrote:as we already have rules that state the accumulation
Citation nowhere does it state that the same power resolves cumulatively with itself.
Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.
Stacking is just a word used to describe something that basic maths already does.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.
Only in certain circumstances when we have permission to use maths may we do so. Where is the permission to resolve powers cumulatively (resulting in multiple modifiers and thus making page 2 relevant).
76982
Post by: Tonberry7
nosferatu1001 wrote: Tonberry7 wrote:p68 BRB "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative".
If you're casting Hammerhand twice, you're casting the same psychic power twice. It doesn't say that the effects of identical powers are cumulative, so no, it doesn't stack.
Classic logical fallacy called excluded middle. Try looking it up.
The only thing I need to look up are the actual rules. You should try that instead. Hammerhand is either a different power to Hammerhand, or it is not.
It isn't different, so two castings don't stack.
49616
Post by: grendel083
FlingitNow wrote:Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.
Only in certain circumstances when we have permission to use maths may we do so. Where is the permission to resolve powers cumulatively (resulting in multiple modifiers and thus making page 2 relevant).
The very fact that there is a rule called "Multiple Modifiers" and not just "One Modifier".
There are rules covering the resolving of powers. There are rules for applying more than one modifier.
You're asking for permission for something that already has permission.
Will you then ask for permission for the permission? And permission for that?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I'm still trying to find permission to resolve maledictions on models with 4 limbs.
49616
Post by: grendel083
PrinceRaven wrote:I'm still trying to find permission to resolve maledictions on models with 4 limbs.
Apparently you need permission to even look for that permission.
And if you find it you then need permission to use that permission.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
You're a fan of actual rules.
Cite this one.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Bausk wrote:As for Blessings/Maladictions they are not cumulative unless they have permission written into the powers individual rule.
This is actually false.
There is no denial of permission anywhere, so if you cast a blessing or malediction twice you resolve twice and nothing says they are not cumulative, which would be needed since we already have permission.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Enough with the "joke" comments in this thread.
Final warning.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Tonberry7 wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: Tonberry7 wrote:p68 BRB "the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative".
If you're casting Hammerhand twice, you're casting the same psychic power twice. It doesn't say that the effects of identical powers are cumulative, so no, it doesn't stack.
Classic logical fallacy called excluded middle. Try looking it up.
The only thing I need to look up are the actual rules. You should try that instead. Hammerhand is either a different power to Hammerhand, or it is not.
It isn't different, so two castings don't stack.
The rules do not state what you claim, so as per the tenets, back your assertion up.
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
My conclusion on this issue, though I am in disagreement from an 'How I Would Play It' standpoint as I believe the intent was not to stack: The problem with this question is the lack of information provided by Game Workshop. There is more then enough evidence to imply intent on what they meant by 'different powers' when you take a look at how they used the words 'same power' and 'different power' throughout this section. It is also extremely clear that different psychic powers have permission to stack, because they out right state this, but they are very quiet on the question of 'do same powers stack?' even after months of debates. The problem is nothing within these sentences out-right states that the writer intended for the words 'different powers stack' to be read as 'same powers do not stack.' Even though it would be logical to read it as such, the format in which rules are written does not always allow for logical conclusions. Game Workshop rules are those which do not grant you permission to come to logical conclusions and some rules even break if you try, so we can not take this leap of logic.... Without a line stating the 'Same Powers do Not Stack' there is nothing technically preventing them from stacking if permission to resolve the power is granted... and it is.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Actually, as pointed out, it is a FALLACY to state that same powers do not stack, based simply on a statement that different powers do. You cannot, in a satisfactory manner, state such.
Still waiting why permission to resolve a modifier isn't sufficient. The made up requirement posited here needs some actual textual support, or it has to be withdrawn
64332
Post by: Bausk
As I said in the previous thread; The fact is different powers stack (redundant if a reminder as obviously this is the case) which leans towards same named powers not stacking unless stated otherwise as per the brb. Ignoring pre-6th ed powers (as they ise thier own rules listed in thier respective codices) there are a multitude of Blessings/Maledictions that state that they are cumulative coupled with the fact that others, even in the same codex and written by the same dev, do not have this specific statement of accumulation. This leads to the logical conclusion that same named powers are npt intended to stack unless they have specific wording allowing them to do so.
The alternative you would have us believe is a number of redundant reminders. I'm inclined to belive otherwise.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Without a line stating the 'Same Powers do Not Stack' there is nothing technically preventing them from stacking if permission to resolve the power cumulatively is granted... and it is not.
FTFY
73427
Post by: JinxDragon
And, as I put forth, where in the rules are you granted permission to make such a logical conclusion? Don't fault me too much Bausk, your logical conclusion has a good deal of evidence to back it up and I have seen you make some very, very, good arguments on this topic. If all it took was applying logic to these rules then no one here would be in doubt that "Same Powers do not Stack." The problem stems from the fact that Game Workshop rules run on something more akin to 'Ork logic' then 'human logic.' To such an extent that applying logic to their rules has been proven to break things even further. This informs us that the only logic that matters is what was going through the writers twisted little mind when he penned this sentence, and he is very quiet on what that was. Which is what frustrates me the most... we get stupid Frequently Asked Question answers for some of the most simplest of things but not a peep on something that has been debated throughout tournaments and all across the internet to such an extent. I'm positive once that answer is provided it will be 'no, same named powers do not stack' and this whole thing will then go away. Yet even with how easy it would be for them to correct a misconception, whichever view is the misconception, they simply not bothered with this topic at all. Sadly, again, par of the course for Game Workshop.
64332
Post by: Bausk
It's similar to models nit being able to move though other models, with note exception. The movement rules never cover it but its eluded to later in the rules. I agree it's very grey and the opposition does have an argument, though the argument doesn't include page two, having us belive that different means same named powers from different casters or the same citation being the most redundant reminder in 40k history. Automatically Appended Next Post: Thier argument holds water with the lack of express denial of same power stacking. Nothing more than that. Automatically Appended Next Post: Addtionally, while yes powers are in of them selve not USRs we have a gw logic refernce from them in the matter.
52446
Post by: Abandon
grendel083 wrote: FlingitNow wrote:as we already have rules that state the accumulation
Citation nowhere does it state that the same power resolves cumulatively with itself.
Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.
Stacking is just a word used to describe something that basic maths already does.
As we are told when and how math applies to things it cannot be assumed.
grendel083 wrote: FlingitNow wrote:Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.
Only in certain circumstances when we have permission to use maths may we do so. Where is the permission to resolve powers cumulatively (resulting in multiple modifiers and thus making page 2 relevant).
The very fact that there is a rule called "Multiple Modifiers" and not just "One Modifier".
There are rules covering the resolving of powers. There are rules for applying more than one modifier.
You're asking for permission for something that already has permission.
Will you then ask for permission for the permission? And permission for that?
to make the point clear, as we know modifiers are permitted stack but 'same' powers lack any direct statement of permission. How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit? Bearing in mind the modifier it creates is permitted accumulation but the effect itself is not.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually, as pointed out, it is a FALLACY to state that same powers do not stack, based simply on a statement that different powers do. You cannot, in a satisfactory manner, state such.
Still waiting why permission to resolve a modifier isn't sufficient. The made up requirement posited here needs some actual textual support, or it has to be withdrawn
Because the effect is not a modifier. IE, if a model were immune to modifiers would it be immune to Enfeeble? No. It would only be immune to the modifier created by it's effect.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote:to make the point clear, as we know modifiers are permitted stack but 'same' powers lack any direct statement of permission.
Good thing we have a general allowance and specific permission is not needed.
How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?
That depends on the opposing army, but could be upwards of 4 when facing Nids.
Bearing in mind the modifier it creates is permitted accumulation but the effect itself is not.
Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote: Abandon wrote:to make the point clear, as we know modifiers are permitted stack but 'same' powers lack any direct statement of permission.
Good thing we have a general allowance and specific permission is not needed.
How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?
That depends on the opposing army, but could be upwards of 4 when facing Nids.
Bearing in mind the modifier it creates is permitted accumulation but the effect itself is not.
Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.
Actually it does not.
general allowance to cast and resolve>Enfeeble come into effect on the unit>modifiers and SRs from that effect are applied
You've shown permission to do the first part several times and permission to stack the modifiers in the last part but you have not ever shown permission to 'stack' the middle part. Which makes weather or not the modifiers stack irrelevant until you do so.
If you read the BRB blessings and maledictions they all say 'while this power is in effect...' they get modifiers, SR's, etc. Which creates the need for the powers themselves to be cumulative in order to have more than one 'in effect'. Until such is shown, you can never have 4 Enfeebles in effect on a unit.
Note: Powers from 5th edition should be left out of any general debate on this as they are not worded for this edition and should instead be considered on a case by case basis IMO.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.
If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.
This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Was that directed at me? Perhaps I should rephrase what I'm saying.
Saying that you do can not resolve a power on a unit that has a previous instance of the power in effect on it is because there is no specific permission to do so is nearly as ridiculous as saying you can't resolve a power on a unit made up of models with 4 limbs because there is no specific permission to do so.
Better?
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote:The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.
If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.
This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...
No, it really doesn't.
Can add more effect ≠the effect is cumulative
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.
If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.
This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...
No, it really doesn't.
Can add more effect ≠the effect is cumulative
Except for, you know, the rules that tell us that targeting and resolution of a power is legal.
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote: Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.
If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.
This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...
No, it really doesn't.
Can add more effect ≠the effect is cumulative
Except for, you know, the rules that tell us that targeting and resolution of a power is legal.
That has nothing to do with what i just said.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote: Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote:The general allowance to cast and resolve Enfeeble is the permission to stack the middle part.
If you can not see that you are either trolling, or not reading the rules posted.
This power means the enfeeble that was just cast...
No, it really doesn't.
Can add more effect ≠the effect is cumulative
Except for, you know, the rules that tell us that targeting and resolution of a power is legal.
That has nothing to do with what i just said.
If you can not see that it does then it seems there can be no more discussion as there is a fundamental misunderstanding in your argument.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Abandon - the effect IS the modifier, and we have permission to apply multiple
You have created, out of thin air, an additional step you claim needs permission. As it is made up, it has no bearing here.
4+1+1=6. Done
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Was that directed at me? Perhaps I should rephrase what I'm saying.
Saying that you do can not resolve a power on a unit that has a previous instance of the power in effect on it is because there is no specific permission to do so is nearly as ridiculous as saying you can't resolve a power on a unit made up of models with 4 limbs because there is no specific permission to do so.
Better?
The underlined is widely inaccurate no one has stated you can not resolve the power. All we have stated is that you have no permission to resolve the power cumulatively. So you resolve the power but there is no additional effect as the unit already has that power in effect on it.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
That relies on the wording of the power though, and can you say with absolute certainty that "whilst the power is in effect" means the power Enfeeble in and of itself rather than the power Enfeeble you just cast? And what about Hammerhand, which doesn't have that wording?
I say that we can not adequately determine whether or not powers stack until GW explains what "the power" is referring to.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Context. If a psychic power is cast we need to read the specific psychic power to see how to resolve it, the context would dictate that they are talking about the casting of that psychic power you are resolving.
50012
Post by: Crimson
DeathReaper wrote:
Context.
If a psychic power is cast we need to read the specific psychic power to see how to resolve it, the context would dictate that they are talking about the casting of that psychic power you are resolving.
First of all, if you understood context, you'd also know what 'different powers stack' implies.
Secondly, no you cannot deduce that from the context. It is at least as likely that 'this power' refers to that power in general eg. "whilst the Enfeeble is in effect..."
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Well, 'different powers stack' is a reminder that different powers will indeed stack.
50012
Post by: Crimson
DeathReaper wrote:Well, 'different powers stack' is a reminder that different powers will indeed stack.
And it is utterly nonsensical if same powers also stack.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
No, no nonsensical, but redundant. Like all reminders.
Given the absolutely crystal clear denial in the special rules section, why are you ignoring the lack of denial here?
I have permission to resolve, the resolution is a modifier, and as per page two I know, precisely, how to resolve
There IS NO DENIAL. None. It would have been posted by now. There is just the made up assertion that there is an additional permission required, with no rules basis or precedent, that keeps getting tossed up.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Crimson wrote: DeathReaper wrote:Well, 'different powers stack' is a reminder that different powers will indeed stack.
And it is utterly nonsensical if same powers also stack.
By its nature a reminder is redundant.
And as nos has said, redundant not nonsensical, like all reminders.
52446
Post by: Abandon
nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - the effect IS the modifier, and we have permission to apply multiple
You have created, out of thin air, an additional step you claim needs permission. As it is made up, it has no bearing here.
4+1+1=6. Done
So you're saying Enfeeble is not 'in effect' on the unit? Well that would cause it not to function at all as it states it must be 'in effect' to do anything. I did not make that up. The power tells us what happens when it is in effect. That indicates a cause and effect relationship between the power being in effect and the resulting effects from that, such as a modifier. I did not make that up either.
IDK about all the codices but among the BRB blessings and maledictions this wording is a common theme. When put together with the description of how blessing/maledictions work they do indeed activate on the target and are sustained for a time. During that time the unit is effected by them in the way described according to the power. I'm simply asking how many times the power can be 'in effect' and by all indication this is separate from any end effect that might occur.
Of course specific powers my be worded differently then the rest and may indeed have permission to stack with themselves. I'm just speaking generically and using enfeeble as it both has a modifier and seems to be quite typical in wording.
So, what part came 'out of thin air'?
50012
Post by: Crimson
It is nonsensical to remind in the general rules for psychic powers that specific sub-group of them stack if you actually mean that all do.
Given the absolutely crystal clear denial in the special rules section, why are you ignoring the lack of denial here?
That lack of denial is indeed the unfortunate omission that results this whole discussion.
I have permission to resolve, the resolution is a modifier, and as per page two I know, precisely, how to resolve
Yes, you resolve. And then the power is in effect. It doesn't matter how many times it is in effect. It is binary.
I've said this many times, but I say this again: the RAW is unclear, and anyone who claims otherwise is deluding themselves. There's no way to know for sure whether 'This power ' in power descriptions refer to individual casting or to the power in general.
However, 'different stack' and specific permission for stacking certain powers but not for other similar powers (in the same book) imply strongly that the intent is not for same powers to stack on default.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
For the most part I agree with Crimson, until we know what "the power" refers to in Enfeeble and similarly worded powers we're basically guessing whether they're supposed to stack or not. But going back to the OP's question, as Hammerhand does not have the ambiguous wording of Enfeeble et al. it definitely stacks according to RAW.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
PrinceRaven wrote:For the most part I agree with Crimson, until we know what "the power" refers to in Enfeeble and similarly worded powers we're basically guessing whether they're supposed to stack or not. But going back to the OP's question, as Hammerhand does not have the ambiguous wording of Enfeeble et al. it definitely stacks according to RAW.
I'd like to point out again that the only time Hammerhand had permission to stack was at the end of 5th edition, due to the last 5th ed BRB FAQ which allowed all powers with modifiers to be cumulative with multiple castings. That permission did not carry over to 6th, as of the very first 6th ed BRB FAQ, which did not include similar verbiage. Nor does the current GK FAQ. However, the Codex: Inquisition version of Hammerhand is listed as a Blessing.
If we follow the rules detailing all abilities that bend or break the basic rules of the game are not cumulative with multiple uses of the same ability (unless otherwise noted), as written in the Special Rules section of the BRB, which does list psychic powers as a source and stat modifiers as an effect that fall under this ruling, then the "reminder" that different powers are cumulative is in fact permission to deviate from the Special Rules restriction, rather than an unneeded reminder that "does not mean same does not stack". Following the logic that GW wrote the BRB to be read by a 7th grader from front to back, top to bottom, left to right, we see that GW lays down a theme of different abilities being cumulative, while multiple uses of the same ability requires specific permission to be cumulative.
6th ed is not a tightly written rule set, with rules that stand alone in a vacuum. It takes a broader, more interactive reading of the rules to achieve a better understanding of what we are given permission to do in the game.
SJ
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
At no point does the Special Rules section state that the restriction of the same special rule to be cumulative is extended to psychic powers. Hammerhand stacks because it has permission to be cast, resolve and affect a unit and nothing in the rules states that then unit already being under the effects of a previous Hammerhand denies permission in any way.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
PrinceRaven wrote:At no point does the Special Rules section state that the restriction of the same special rule to be cumulative is extended to psychic powers. Hammerhand stacks because it has permission to be cast, resolve and affect a unit and nothing in the rules states that then unit already being under the effects of a previous Hammerhand denies permission in any way.
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make your view on it true.
SJ
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
That's not much of a counter-argument.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Can you quote where Enfeeble or Hammerhand is listed in the Special Rules section?
My rulebook must be defective because I can't find them. The page number would help.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Jeffersonian - so you are repeating the utterly debunked argument that psychic powers are special rules?
Surely not, as that would be dishonest.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
As has been cited and quoted in both previous threads, pg. 32 of the BRB informs us that any ability that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game follow the restrictions in the Special Rules section. Examples of such rules breaking/bending abilities include modifiers to model characteristics, which are also listed on pg. 32. Further, we are told on the same page that such abilities are found in Wargear, Scenarios, Terrain, and Psychic Powers. To top it all off, we are told that the list of Universal Special Rules is not exclusive, only listing to most common special rules found in the game, which includes the USR Psyker, an ability that details further rules can be found in the Psychic Powers section.
Since all Blessings, all Maledictions, and some psychic shooting attaches contain additional rules that bend or break some basic rules of the game, such as applying modifiers, change the order of operations, replacing wounding mechanics, or granting a USR, those powers do fall under the Special Rules restrictions as detailed on pg. 32.
As such, unless otherwise noted, the effects from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. However, multiple applications of the same modifier from different abilities are cumulative. An example would be a unit that is being charged by multiple units with Rad Grenades and the Enfeeble power. No matter how many times the targeted unit is effected by Rad Grenades or Enfeeble, that unit will only ever take a -1 T for the first Rad Grenade, and a -1 T from the first Enfeeble, because neither Rad Grenades nor Enfeeble contain verbiage granting the ability to stack from multiple uses.
Hammerhand + Might of Titan will stack per pg. 2, but Hammerhand + Hammerhand will not stack per pages 32 and 68.
SJ
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So +1 s is a special rule?
Found that page and para yet?
Nothing you state dis true, and has been debunked in every thread you've tried it. At this point you are simply trolling by reporting something you know to be false
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:Since all Blessings, all Maledictions, and some psychic shooting attaches contain additional rules that bend or break some basic rules of the game, such as applying modifiers, change the order of operations, replacing wounding mechanics, or granting a USR, those powers do fall under the Special Rules restrictions as detailed on pg. 32.
You're making a leap here that is unsupported by actual rules.
Some support for your assumption would be nice - for once. I don't expect any, but it'd be nice.
76982
Post by: Tonberry7
Where in the BRB does it state that the effects of identical psychic powers are cumulative? Or that a subsequent casting of a power already in effect has any effect at all?
As I've already cited, it definitely does say that the effects of different powers are cumulative. Why would they bother explicitly stating different powers are cumulative if they meant identical powers as well?
It's clear that some perople are deliberately misinterpreting the actual rules in order to seek advantage, or even just for the sake of argument.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Tonberry7 wrote:Where in the BRB does it state that the effects of identical psychic powers are cumulative? Or that a subsequent casting of a power already in effect has any effect at all?
As I've already cited, it definitely does say that the effects of different powers are cumulative. Why would they bother explicitly stating different powers are cumulative if they meant identical powers as well?
It's clear that some perople are deliberately misinterpreting the actual rules in order to seek advantage, or even just for the sake of argument.
Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists. That denial does not actually exist in the rules, despite your accusations.
It's clear that some "perople" are deliberately misinterpreting why people argue the way they do. I'm arguing this because that's what the rules actually say - my local groups have ruled that they don't stack.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
nosferatu1001 wrote:So +1 s is a special rule?
Found that page and para yet?
Nothing you state dis true, and has been debunked in every thread you've tried it. At this point you are simply trolling by reporting something you know to be false
You've never successfully debunked, disproven, nor actually proven anything in the past three threads on this very subject. If you had, we wouldn't be at 40 pages of circular argument. Disagree all you want, the Non-Stacking side has a valid claim that RAW supports no stacking without permission. The Stacking side has put forth no argument beyond " pg. 2 ", "permission to resolve", and the classic "it doesn't say we can't".
And unlike the Stacker crowd, the Non-Stackers agree the issue is unclear enough that it requires an FAQ or Errata from GW to resolve. Baring that, we need to either discuss the issue with our opponents or follow the TO's ruling if in a tournament.
SJ
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote: Disagree all you want, the Non-Stacking side has a valid claim that RAW supports no stacking without permission.
Well since we have actually shown permission the Non-Stacking side does not have a leg to stand on.
The Stacking side has put forth no argument beyond "pg. 2 ", "permission to resolve",
Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.
Denial of this permission, however, has never been shown by the opposition...
and the classic "it doesn't say we can't".
We never said that.
And unlike the Stacker crowd, the Non-Stackers agree the issue is unclear enough that it requires an FAQ or Errata from GW to resolve. Baring that, we need to either discuss the issue with our opponents or follow the TO's ruling if in a tournament.
SJ
Because the Non-Stackers are ignoring the evidence.
49698
Post by: kambien
rigeld2 wrote:
Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists.
has been shown wrong countless times now
resolution is nothing more then determining the outcome . That is the definition of it , it in no way gives you permission to do anything
64332
Post by: Bausk
Evidence? What evidence? Before you answer please only reference the psychic power section of the brb or codex powers.
50012
Post by: Crimson
DeathReaper wrote:
Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.
You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.
64332
Post by: Bausk
Crimson wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.
You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.
This indeed, unless the power has specific express permission in its own rules to be cumulative with itself as cited numerous times.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
kambien wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists.
has been shown wrong countless times now
resolution is nothing more then determining the outcome . That is the definition of it , it in no way gives you permission to do anything
Really?
page 67 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.
I am required (by the rules) to follow the instructions in the powers entry. That's what resolution means for psychic powers in 40k. Your statement is wholly without merit.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Crimson wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.
You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.
Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Talking about psychic tests first you target a unit, then take a Psychic Test and "If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved" (67)
You are told to resolve the power.
In the case of Hammerhand that means increasing the units Str by 1.
We have permission to cast the power again on the same unit as per page 67-68 so we resolve the next casting of hammerhand and we get another +1 Str.
Base Str4 +1 from first casting, +1 from second casting. Quick look at multiple modifiers on page 2 = 4+1+1=6
Undeniable proof.
64332
Post by: Bausk
The instructions in its entry allow stacking? No, only allows different powers to accumulate. How about the power itself? Doesn't have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself? The the power resolves as sustaining the effect and not adding to it.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Bausk wrote:The instructions in its entry allow stacking? No, only allows different powers to accumulate. How about the power itself? Doesn't have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself? The the power resolves as sustaining the effect and not adding to it.
Citation needed.
68355
Post by: easysauce
there are no rules for enfeeble two,
its the same power as enfeeble, your whole argument relies on there being two different powers when there really is only one identical power,
also, USR rules specifically states that NOT every special rule is in that section, and that the USR section is not an exhaustive list of special rules.
It also outlines what special rules are, with psychic powers and things such as modifying str being mentioned in the USR preface text on pg 32 BRB
what special rules do I have? on pg 32 specifically calls out powers.
OFC when I take the time to type these out, I am shouted down, and told they are "fluff" because : REASONS!
every other power that stacks with itself, has an exception written into its particular power's special rules for a reason. there are many examples of powers with this exception, and many in 6th ed codexes.
psyker, is 100% raw a special rule, and in the USR section.
cast a power, without using a special rule (so nothing from pg66 BRB psykers)
oh you cant? thats because its a special rule.
50012
Post by: Crimson
rigeld2 wrote:
Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.
"This power" in the power descriptions refers to that power in general, instead of individual instances of it (or it doesn't... but it is impossible to prove either way.)
64332
Post by: Bausk
DeathReaper wrote: Bausk wrote:The instructions in its entry allow stacking? No, only allows different powers to accumulate. How about the power itself? Doesn't have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself? The the power resolves as sustaining the effect and not adding to it.
Citation needed.
Already cited numerous times across these threads. There is grey areas for both sides of the argument but the numerous references lean in favour of nonstacking blessing/maladictions over stacking.
49698
Post by: kambien
rigeld2 wrote:kambien wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists.
has been shown wrong countless times now
resolution is nothing more then determining the outcome . That is the definition of it , it in no way gives you permission to do anything
Really?
page 67 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.
I am required (by the rules) to follow the instructions in the powers entry. That's what resolution means for psychic powers in 40k. Your statement is wholly without merit.
incorrect , that is not what resolution means .
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolve
lets replace it with definition
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "determine the outcome" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry.
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "solve" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "reach a decision" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "to find a solution" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "to bring about a successful conclusion" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
at no point you are required to apply the effect , resolving it means you determine what just happened ,
in game terms its a stop point where you determine all the applicable variables and come to a conclusion which you apply and then move on
47462
Post by: rigeld2
That's not what it means? When I quoted the rule that says exactly that - it actually means something different? You're told to follow the instructions in its entry. Correct? Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all? Automatically Appended Next Post: Crimson wrote:rigeld2 wrote: Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.
"This power" in the power descriptions refers to that power in general, instead of individual instances of it (or it doesn't... but it is impossible to prove either way.)
So you don't have a rule denying it, just an assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you are not actually following the rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: easysauce wrote:its the same power as enfeeble, your whole argument relies on there being two different powers when there really is only one identical power,
You're failing to understand my argument then. what special rules do I have? on pg 32 specifically calls out powers.
It really doesn't - none that apply to modifiers anyway. p32 wrote:Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
Notice how some psychic powers grant Special Rules like Feel No Pain and Relentless? every other power that stacks with itself, has an exception written into its particular power's special rules for a reason. there are many examples of powers with this exception, and many in 6th ed codexes.
The bolded is an assumption. psyker, is 100% raw a special rule, and in the USR section. cast a power, without using a special rule (so nothing from pg66 BRB psykers) oh you cant? thats because its a special rule.
Completely correct. And absolutely irrelevant.
50012
Post by: Crimson
rigeld2 wrote:
So you don't have a rule denying it, just an assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you are not actually following the rules.
My assumption has exactly as strong RAW backing as yours. However, unlike you, I actually realise that it can be interpreted in two equally valid ways. And I chose my interpretation because there's RAI support for it from the other parts of the rules.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Crimson wrote:rigeld2 wrote:
So you don't have a rule denying it, just an assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you are not actually following the rules.
My assumption has exactly as strong RAW backing as yours. However, unlike you, I actually realise that it can be interpreted in two equally valid ways. And I chose my interpretation because there's RAI support for it from the other parts of the rules.
By not following the text of the power you are not following the rules. It's pretty much that simple.
50012
Post by: Crimson
rigeld2 wrote:
By not following the text of the power you are not following the rules. It's pretty much that simple.
I follow the rules. Enfeeble is in effect, modifiers happen. Number of Enfeebles doesn't affect this.
49698
Post by: kambien
Correct that not what it means
Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
rigeld2 wrote:When I quoted the rule that says exactly that - it actually means something different? You're told to follow the instructions in its entry. Correct?
you mean the rule i quoted 5 times with the definition of resolve in resolve's place ? yes follow the powers instructions and resolve it. again Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
it does not say apply the effect as written , it says " 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. "
rigeld2 wrote:Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?
permissive rule set . your logic is backwards. It's do i have permission to make same power modifies stack able
unless you can quote a blanket statement that says all powers are cumulative
64332
Post by: Bausk
The text of enfeeble doesn't permit cumulative effects. The text of maladictions strongly indicates that only different named powers may stack.
What do you have again? Permission to target and cast (includinh resolution)?
Yeah no, I'm sticking with the rule interpretation that doesn't assume games workshop writes completly redundant rules but sometimes leave things out due to oversite.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
kambien wrote:you mean the rule i quoted 5 times with the definition of resolve in resolve's place ? yes follow the powers instructions and resolve it. again Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
it does not say apply the effect as written , it says " 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. "
... and what's in the entry? Does it say to maybe, if you feel like it, apply the modifier? My copy of the BRB doesn't say that - does yours?
rigeld2 wrote:Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?
permissive rule set . your logic is backwards. It's do i have permission to make same power modifies stack able
unless you can quote a blanket statement that says all powers are cumulative
Actually, it's not backwards as has been demonstrated.
Assuming that the test was passed and not denied I have permission to resolve according to the instructions for the power. So I'm required to do so.
I'm attempting to follow those instructions. You're attempting to deny me. You have refused (or failed) to cite a denial.
64332
Post by: Bausk
Kambien, the basic psychic rules assume all powers are, unless its specified that they are not. The specific rules for blessings/maladictions states unless specified that different powers are cumulative. The individual powers rulea may or may not have a specific express permission to be cumulative in its entry.
I agree its not clear cut denial but the intent is present .
49698
Post by: kambien
Bausk wrote:Yeah no, I'm sticking with the rule interpretation that doesn't assume games workshop writes completly redundant rules but sometimes leave things out due to oversite.
actually telling you to resolve the power is a redundant rule , unless you stop the game you will in some way resolve the power ( obviously your aim is to be correct ) Automatically Appended Next Post: Bausk wrote:Kambien, the basic psychic rules assume all powers are, unless its specified that they are not. The specific rules for blessings/maladictions states unless specified that different powers are cumulative. The individual powers rulea may or may not have a specific express permission to be cumulative in its entry..
what pg can i find that under ?
64332
Post by: Bausk
Resolution is not limited to application. And the allegedly redundant rules, according to the prostack side, are "reminders" that different blessings/maladictions stack and specific express permission to be cumulative if some but not all blessings/maladictions. Alleging these are "reminders" is the ridiculous redundancy I'm talking of.
50012
Post by: Crimson
By Rigeld's logic you cannot cast powers that modify certain characteristics on vehicles, as then you cannot apply the effects as vehicles lack those characteristics. And applying the effects is, according to him, required for resolving the power.
64332
Post by: Bausk
The psychic power section...the section this discussion is about....really...
49698
Post by: kambien
rigeld2 wrote:kambien wrote:you mean the rule i quoted 5 times with the definition of resolve in resolve's place ? yes follow the powers instructions and resolve it. again Resolution does not = Resolution requires applying the effect
it does not say apply the effect as written , it says " 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. "
... and what's in the entry? Does it say to maybe, if you feel like it, apply the modifier? My copy of the BRB doesn't say that - does yours?
mine says "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."
so according to my book and it's text , i have to do the text in the power , then resolve to determine the outcome of the power.
rigeld2 wrote:Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?
permissive rule set . your logic is backwards. It's do i have permission to make same power modifies stack able
unless you can quote a blanket statement that says all powers are cumulative
you demonstrated that you misuse the term resolve to give you permission to stack powers , which was pointed out as wrong several times
rigeld2 wrote:Assuming that the test was passed and not denied I have permission to resolve according to the instructions for the power. So I'm required to do so.
I'm attempting to follow those instructions. You're attempting to deny me. You have refused (or failed) to cite a denial.
there is no denial , your just using resolve incorrectly . You keep using it as a permission to do things . Resolve gives no permissions to do anything . Actualy you need to take everything that has been done and come to a conclusion
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?
If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.
If it is illogical to remind us that the effects of different powers are cumulative if sometimes multiple instances of the same power can also be cumulative, isn't it also illogical to remind us that special rules are not cumulative if we should be assuming that anyway due to lack of specific permission?
Can the pro-stacking side honestly say that "the power" in the wording of Enfeeble and similar powers clearly refers to that instance of the power rather than the power in itself and that there's no ambiguity at all?
64332
Post by: Bausk
Resolve being interpreted as stacking is not wrong, it's an assumption with merit as there is a lack of specific denial. Though a power can be resolved in many ways that are not stacking. However as it say resolve the power as per its entry we move on to the next section, sub-groups of powers and look at those rules where we find more lack of specific denial but eluded to denial in the form of Different powers may stack (which one interpretation is that its a redundant reminder). We then read the power entry itself which may or may not have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself which leans more on the non stacking interpretation (though the opposition would have us believe this is another redundant reminder).
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Jeffersonian -so, no page ref proving that +1S is a special rule?
Then your argument remains debunked.
You are told to resolve according to the entry. The entry states +1S. This is a modiifer. Multiple modiifers operate according to the rules on page 2.
Damn, back here again. Its almost like they ALREADY gave us rules for accumulating as per the rules of maths.
60990
Post by: Polecat
Bausk wrote:
Yeah no, I'm sticking with the rule interpretation that doesn't assume games workshop writes completly redundant rules but sometimes leave things out due to oversite.
GW does write redundant rules, here are some examples just from the Psychic powers -section:
Enfeeble:
Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -1 penalry to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as dfficult terrain.
Foreboding:
...and fire Overwatch on their full ballistic Skill, rather than Ballistic Skill 1. Note that this does not allow weapons that could not normally fire Overwatch to do so.
Puppet Master:
The target immediately makes a shooting attack as if it was one of your models (this cannot target his own unit).
I bolded the redundant parts.
there are plenty more redundant rules in BRB and in codices.
64332
Post by: Bausk
Those are less evident than the assumption that differ powers is a redundant reminder.
68289
Post by: Nem
You resolve the power, as per the rules in its entry.
Application 1.
Whilst the power is in effect the target unit suffers...
-1T, -1S.
Treats all terrain as difficult
Application 2.
Whilst the power is in effect..
-Pro Stacking side: Different sourced Enfeebles stack the effect, the target unit should suffer Enfeeble effect twice. (Enfeeble x2 on target unit)
-Anti Stacking side: The target unit has suffered -1T and -1S while under the effect of Enfeeble, the rules are satisfied, with no further action required. (Enfeeble on target unit)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Personal thoughts?
Either they forgot to point out the same powers do stack, or the lack of that sentance is deliberate.
Finding permissions in the back end working is always a bit dodgy rules wise, they tend to get slapped down with a FAQ eventually.
Everything else is made clear on what is and what rules are and are not cumulative, due to other sections throughout the rule book they should have realised if they do stack they should probably mention it, but thats giving a lot of credit. Maybe we'll never know.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
This isnt the back end wording, however. ITs page 2.
You have multiple modifiers, so you apply them using the permission granted in page 2.
It is incredibly simple. The attempts at finding a denial are FAR more tricksy
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
nosferatu1001 wrote:Jeffersonian -so, no page ref proving that +1S is a special rule?
Then your argument remains debunked.
You are told to resolve according to the entry. The entry states +1S. This is a modiifer. Multiple modiifers operate according to the rules on page 2.
Damn, back here again. Its almost like they ALREADY gave us rules for accumulating as per the rules of maths.
I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).
SJ
49698
Post by: kambien
nosferatu1001 wrote:This isnt the back end wording, however. ITs page 2.
You have multiple modifiers, so you apply them using the permission granted in page 2.
It is incredibly simple. The attempts at finding a denial are FAR more tricksy
pg2 only applies when stacking is permitted which is the crux of the entire issue Automatically Appended Next Post: PrinceRaven wrote:I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?
If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.
I'm not sure by what you mean with the hive tyrant example . Lascannons are heavy 1 so you don't even get a chance to cause more wounds unless there is something else in play . Actually lascannos don't cause wounds anyways they modify the to wound roll from hits
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).
Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
kambien wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?
If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.
I'm not sure by what you mean with the hive tyrant example . Lascannons are heavy 1 so you don't even get a chance to cause more wounds unless there is something else in play . Actually lascannos don't cause wounds anyways they modify the to wound roll from hits
I'm saying that if a Grey Knights unit can't have multiple +1 Str modifiers from Hammerhand without specific permission then a Hive Tyrant can't have multiple -1 wound modifiers from lascannons without specific permission. This example is intended to show that the requirement for specific permission to apply things cumulatively has been invented by the anti-stacking side and does not actually exist in the rules.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).
Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.
I can't help it that your ability to read is the same as Nos', Rigeld. Its in plan text, on pg. 32, what effects fall under Special Rules, what parts of the game are sources of Special Rules, and that Special Rules are not limited to the list of Universal Special Rules. A +1 S is listed as a example of a special rule, as is psychic powers listed as a source of special rules. The Pysker USR tells us where to find the rules for using the Psyker USR.
Just because you deny it, does not make the above facts false. And unlike your side of the argument, the above is written, not implied.
SJ
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.
"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.
What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).
Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.
I can't help it that your ability to read is the same as Nos', Rigeld. Its in plan text, on pg. 32, what effects fall under Special Rules, what parts of the game are sources of Special Rules, and that Special Rules are not limited to the list of Universal Special Rules. A +1 S is listed as a example of a special rule, as is psychic powers listed as a source of special rules. The Pysker USR tells us where to find the rules for using the Psyker USR.
Just because you deny it, does not make the above facts false. And unlike your side of the argument, the above is written, not implied.
The bolded is absolutely false and renders your entire argument useless.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
jeffersonian000 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:
I'm sorry you are unable to read pg. 32 of the BRB? You know, the same page that's been cited, quoted, referenced, and paraphrased over 3 different threads (non-stacking with previous postings, of course).
Page 32 says literally nothing about modifiers. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
Page 32 does not say that psychic powers are special rules. You've invented that or written it in your rulebook.
You keep citing page 32 as if it was relevant - it's not. It's been proven that it's not. Please stop bringing it up.
I can't help it that your ability to read is the same as Nos', Rigeld. Its in plan text, on pg. 32, what effects fall under Special Rules, what parts of the game are sources of Special Rules, and that Special Rules are not limited to the list of Universal Special Rules. A +1 S is listed as a example of a special rule, as is psychic powers listed as a source of special rules. The Pysker USR tells us where to find the rules for using the Psyker USR.
Just because you deny it, does not make the above facts false. And unlike your side of the argument, the above is written, not implied.
SJ
Ah, so you are still using logical fallacies as the basis of your argument? You do realise that that does tend to make your argument more than a little shaky?
Nowhere on page 32 does it state that +1 s is a special rule. It says a special rule CAN be increasing a models strength, however as you well know, you cannot simply reverse that and claim the reverse is always true.
You just made the "all poodles are dogs, therefore all dogs are poodles" argument. Again
Please, for all sanity, concede your error on this.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
PrinceRaven wrote:I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.
"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.
What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.
Incorrect. I have always stated that the abilities a psychic power might grant are to be treated as special rules if those abilities bend or break the basic rules of the game. There are several psychic powers, such as Smite, that grant no additional abilities, and therefore do not fall under Special Rules. Hammerhand, on the other hand, both boosts Strength and applies that boost before multipliers. The boost is mentioned on pg 32, the fact that Hammerhand is psychic power and the source of the boost is covered on pg. 32, and then out of order of application of the boost truly does break or bend the rules on pg. 2.
Let's look at Enfeeble: Enfeeble is a Malediction that inflicts a -1 T on a target as well as making all terrain, invluding clear terrain, count as an additional terrain type. Maledictions are psychic powers, and the modification to Toughness as well as the additional terrain effect do bend or break the basic rules of the game. As such, Enfeeble contains special rules, and should follow the restrictions listed on pg. 32 regardless of the "different Maledictions are cumulative" rule on pg. 68.
Let's look at Psychic Shriek: Psychic Shriek is a Witchfire that inflicts wounds on a target using a wounding mechanic based on the target's Leadership value. Psychic power that bends or breaks the rules.
Smite: A Witchfire the acts like a weapon with a weapon profile. No special rules included.
So, what does Special Rules mean for psychic powers? It means that multiple casting of the power on the same target requires specific permission to stack not only with itself but with other similar affects. General permission is granted on pg. 68 for different powers to stack, while specific permission is required for same powers to stack per the "unless otherwise noted" clause.
Every point I've listed above has been cited, quoted, and paraphrased in the 2 previous threads. The only counter argument put for has been denial and the often stated " pg. 2", "permission to resolve", and "it doesn't say I can't".
SJ
68289
Post by: Nem
Not sure where we are going with the wounds thing. The rules tell you for every roll which hits you roll to wound, you total up how many wounds caused, and then you allocate them. It's pretty on depth about what you can (and by extension can't) do with them. The weapon can cumulate more than one wound because the rules which govern it says it can.
61964
Post by: Fragile
PrinceRaven wrote:I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.
"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.
What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.
This is more likely.
"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."
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
SJ - again with the lying, stop.
No one has used the "it doesn't say I can't" argument. What we HAVE, correctly, used is the "I am told to resolve the non special rule, I know how to do so according to the rules on page 2, and you cannot cite a single, non made up or logically fallacious argument why I should be prevented from doing so"
Given you cannot prove your claims, as they are based on a logical fallacy (making them AT BEST an implication) your concession is accepted. Automatically Appended Next Post: Fragile wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:I believe theses are the passages you're reffering to:
"A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its Strength"
It states that a special rule is capable of modifying a unit's Strength, not that all Strength modifiers are special rules.
"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain"
Might get special rules does not mean every single effect of a psychic power is a special rule.
What you have done here, in both situations, is affirming the consequent. It is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid form of argument.
This is more likely.
"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."
Which relies on either claiming that all psychic powers bestow special rules (false) OR that simply using a special rule means everything that results is also one. The actual rules, as written, disagree wih this. However this was brought up in prior threads, and Jeffersonian simply hand waved them away. Along with the rules that actually show you how to identify a special rule, that Jeffersonian keeps ignoring and pretend don't exist.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Nos - enough with the personal attacks, you have been reported.
As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".
And again, you can deny my statements all you want, your denial does not make my statements untrue. Your inability to refute my statements per the forum tenets is noted.
SJ
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote:As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".
No it does not "equate to "it doesn't say I can't"." That is not true and It is a fallacious argument. What "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative" means is that we have permission to cast 2 powers on a single unit and nothing that restricts this.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Stating the truth isn't a personal attack.
As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".
False. Permission has been shown. Find the denial.
What you're saying is the equivalent of, "You can't shoot my unit. Sure you have permission and no denial, but that's the same as saying "if doesn't say I can't"". Demonstrably false.
And again, you can deny my statements all you want, your denial does not make my statements untrue. Your inability to refute my statements per the forum tenets is noted.
They've been refuted using actual rules. Multiple times. Your refusal to accept facts is amusing but useless in a discussion.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?
I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Happyjew wrote:I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?
I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.
I bolded it for you.
SJ
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote:I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?
I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.
I bolded it for you.
SJ
You do realize there is a difference between a Psychic power and " psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1)" right?
Because if you do not then there is the error in your argument.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote:I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?
I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.
I bolded it for you.
Sorry - I don't see "Terrify" listed in the bolded words. That's what you'd need for your assertion to be true.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote:I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?
I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.
I bolded it for you.
SJ
You do realize there is a difference between a Psychic power and " psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1)" right?
Because if you do not then there is the error in your argument.
You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include additional rules that bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.
SJ
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.
Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.
Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).
Exactly what Rigeld2 has said.
Some Psychic powers grant USR's, Hammerhand does not because "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers... Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power... will make this abundantly clear" (32)
Hammerhand does not grant a USR because it does not make it "abundantly clear" taht it grants a USR.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.
Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).
Who said all psychic powers are special rules? Not more than a few posts above yours I explain how psychic powers interact with special rules. Did you not read that post?
SJ
60145
Post by: Lungpickle
LOL. I have to say its entertaining to see the debate however remember the people here don't make the rules or errata so its irrelevant, other then to argue.'
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Stating the truth - that you lied - is not a personal attack. It was proven true. You have even admitted it since.
jeffersonian000 wrote:As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".
No, it does not. What it DOES equate to is: you are using a logical fallacy as the basis for your argument, and we are pointing that fact out. The fact you are apparently unable to tell the difference between a rebuttal - which that is, a perfect one, of the claim that permission to accumulate different has ANY BEARING on same - and the argument given elsewhere - whcih is that we HAVE permission, and you are unable to find denial - is amusing.
jeffersonian000 wrote:And again, you can deny my statements all you want, your denial does not make my statements untrue. Your inability to refute my statements per the forum tenets is noted.
SJ
Well, apart from:
1) Proving your assertion about page 32 incorrect, using citations. It is noted that you have utterly failed to address the flawless rebuttal by others, almost as if you are doing the usual handwave away....
2) Proving that the logical fallacy used to assert denial is, in fact, a fallacy. While I wont commit the fallacy fallacy, it does undermine the argument somewhat.
Your statements are, factually, false. This has been proven. Please do not further insult posters here.
49698
Post by: kambien
actually i haven't seen this at all, could we get a quote to this so the thread is up to date
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Where is this "proof" you often state yet never quote? Where is this "flawless argument"?
We are all still waiting, and have been waiting for 40+ pages. Please enlighten us. I would love for you or Rigeld to actually cite something, anything to support your argument.
SJ
50012
Post by: Crimson
nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it does not. What it DOES equate to is: you are using a logical fallacy as the basis for your argument, and we are pointing that fact out.
It is a logical fallacy if you assume that the rules are more like logical syntax rather than normal, everyday communication. It can instead be seen as an exception that proves the rule. If there's a sign that says "Parking allowed on Sundays" most people will interpret it to mean that it is indeed forbidden to park there in other days of the week, even though that logically doesn't follow.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
jeffersonian000 wrote:rigeld2 wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.
Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).
Who said all psychic powers are special rules? Not more than a few posts above yours I explain how psychic powers interact with special rules. Did you not read that post?
Your assertion is that any rule that "bends or breaks the rules" is a Special Rule. You've failed to provide evidence of that.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
While I may have failed to prove my point to you Rigeld, you have demonstrated an inability to read and/or understand the written word. As such, it looks like there isn't much more we can gain from your posts.
SJ
47462
Post by: rigeld2
That's amusing. Instead of attempting to explain you jump to personal attacks.
I took you off ignore because I thought you'd actually participate in a discussion honestly. Silly me.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
You are correct in saying that the strength modifier is due to a special rule. This special rule is called "Psyker" not "+1 strength modifier". This means that we cannot stack "Psyker" on a unit, it has no bearing on being able to stack the effects of "Hammerhand", which is a psychic power, not a special rule, and grants a modifier, not special rules that grant a modifier.
49698
Post by: kambien
PrinceRaven wrote:kambien wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?
If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.
I'm not sure by what you mean with the hive tyrant example . Lascannons are heavy 1 so you don't even get a chance to cause more wounds unless there is something else in play . Actually lascannos don't cause wounds anyways they modify the to wound roll from hits
I'm saying that if a Grey Knights unit can't have multiple +1 Str modifiers from Hammerhand without specific permission then a Hive Tyrant can't have multiple -1 wound modifiers from lascannons without specific permission. This example is intended to show that the requirement for specific permission to apply things cumulatively has been invented by the anti-stacking side and does not actually exist in the rules.
i believe nem summed it up a few posts after this one .
you have permissions for each unsaved wound from the wound pool to reduce the wounds of the model by 1 until 0 ( pg 15)
it also states that this process only ends with no models left or no more wounds in the wound pool
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
That's my point though, you don't need specific permission to be cumulative because the basic rules already grant you permission do what it is you're trying to do, whether it be removing wounds or applying the effects of Hammerhand.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
PrinceRaven wrote:That's my point though, you don't need specific permission to be cumulative because the basic rules already grant you permission do what it is you're trying to do, whether it be removing wounds or applying the effects of Hammerhand.
The wound allocation rules are specific permission to resolve wounds cumulatively though.
So by your logic all models can improve their cover save by one because the basic rules already grant you permission to do so. Look at stealth everyone accepts that you get +1 cover save from that and it doesn't have specific permission to improve your cover save.
Just because you have specific permission to be cumulative in certain areas doesn't mean you have blanket permission to be cumulative. Nor does saying you don't have permission to be cumulative in a situation where you clearly do help your argument.
68289
Post by: Nem
PrinceRaven wrote:That's my point though, you don't need specific permission to be cumulative because the basic rules already grant you permission do what it is you're trying to do, whether it be removing wounds or applying the effects of Hammerhand.
Feels flawed.... the basic rules give you permission to
For each shot roll to hit
For each successful hit, roll to wound.
For each unsaved wound, apply -1W.
For Shooting attacks, and CC attacks
In special rules you are;
Given permission to cumulate different special rules.
Given a restriction not to cumulate the same special rules.
In PP you are;
Given permission to cumulate the effects of different PPs.
Neither a permission or restriction to cumulate the effects of the same PPs.
Basic rules each handle their own cumulating for their own area, cumulating a ‘same’ item is only ever granted by spercific permission to, and the 'same' item or other is never assumed by the ability to apply the effect, in those cases we have previously classed the rules as satistfied by the first application rather than stacking the effects, each and every other rule/s in the rule book have guidance on how the same interacts. PP section should deal with this in its own right. Even the modifier section suggests it was written with the modifiers having come from multiple sources in mind, and omits PP's from its description all together.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
You make a good point, Nem. I can see why wound allocation isn't really the best example to use.
60662
Post by: Purifier
Nem wrote:And then someone says possibilities of applying multiple instances of the same effects still requires permission for that effect to be considered cumulative to be able to use the modifier rules, then someone else comes back and says that is not needed, then someone else chimes in with something completely irrelevant which no one answers - before we get back to going around this very familiar roundabout which draws no conclusion.
Five pages later, still true.
LET'S SEE WHERE THIS GOES!
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
rigeld2 wrote:That's amusing. Instead of attempting to explain you jump to personal attacks.
I took you off ignore because I thought you'd actually participate in a discussion honestly. Silly me.
My apologies! I didn't realize you were commenting on posts you never read. Maybe in the future, you should read someone's post before commenting on it. This would save everyone else from wondering why your posts are so far off base, such as asking for an explanation that was already given, or making blanket statements that are untrue.
SJ
52446
Post by: Abandon
rigeld2 wrote: Crimson wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.
You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.
Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.
So you're saying there are two Enfeebles in effect on the unit. How can that be without permission for those two 'Enfeebles in effect' to be cumulative? It cannot. Therefore no additional modifier is applied based off of a second Enfeeble.
Abandon wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - the effect IS the modifier, and we have permission to apply multiple
You have created, out of thin air, an additional step you claim needs permission. As it is made up, it has no bearing here.
4+1+1=6. Done
So you're saying Enfeeble is not 'in effect' on the unit? Well that would cause it not to function at all as it states it must be 'in effect' to do anything. I did not make that up. The power tells us what happens when it is in effect. That indicates a cause and effect relationship between the power being in effect and the resulting effects from that, such as a modifier. I did not make that up either.
IDK about all the codices but among the BRB blessings and maledictions this wording is a common theme. When put together with the description of how blessing/maledictions work they do indeed activate on the target and are sustained for a time. During that time the unit is effected by them in the way described according to the power. I'm simply asking how many times the power can be 'in effect' and by all indication this is separate from any end effect that might occur.
Of course specific powers my be worded differently then the rest and may indeed have permission to stack with themselves. I'm just speaking generically and using enfeeble as it both has a modifier and seems to be quite typical in wording.
So, what part came 'out of thin air'?
As no response has been forthcoming for three pages I assume this is agreed upon without question.
So based on the rules for maledictions as well as the powers description, it is set in motion as:
1. Enfeeble is used and resolved
2. Enfeeble comes into effect(on the target)
3. While the effect from step two is in effect, modifiers and an SR are applied to the target.
You must then prove the second step is cumulative before the third step will be of any consequence in that regard. So far I only see proof that modifiers stack, not Enfeebles.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
There is no rule that states you need permission to be cumulative. As a permissive ruleset, you require permission to do things, and we have permission to resolve the effects of powers "according to instructions in its entry". Now, whether Enfeeble and similarly worded powers can be resolved cumulatively on a unit is up for debate, but that is due to the wording of the powers, not because of a basic rule that states the same power can't be cumulative with itself.
52446
Post by: Abandon
The book states what is cumulative, like wounds. They also state what is Rapid Fire. Are you saying we can count things as being something they are not stated to be?
A power could always come out and say it is cumulative with itself either directly or indirectly. So of course it's going to depend on what the power says. I'm not saying there is a general restriction. I'm saying their is no general permission. So if a power is worded so as to be cumulative, then that's what it is. If not, then not.
If Enfeeble had said 'the target unit suffers a -1T and -1S until the start of your next turn. While this power is in effect it treats all terrain as difficult terrain.' then would have to agree with nos, rigeld, and DR. The modifiers in that case would be separate form the power being 'in effect' and their would be little room to argue as the rules for modifiers are quite clear. That is not the wording they used though.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Abandon wrote:A power could always come out and say it is cumulative with itself either directly or indirectly. So of course it's going to depend on what the power says. I'm not saying there is a general restriction. I'm saying their is no general permission. So if a power is worded so as to be cumulative, then that's what it is. If not, then not.
It seems we're in agreement then.
If Enfeeble had said 'the target unit suffers a -1T and -1S until the start of your next turn. While this power is in effect it treats all terrain as difficult terrain.' then would have to agree with nos, rigeld, and DR. The modifiers in that case would be separate form the power being 'in effect' and their would be little room to argue as the rules for modifiers are quite clear. That is not the wording they used though.
I agree, the wording does seem to indicate that it isn't cumulative, I'm just not 100% sure on that because of the ambiguity. I mean, I think "the power" refers to the power Enfeeble in and of itself, but others think it means that particular manifestation of Enfeeble and I can't prove them wrong, both are viable interpretations.
52446
Post by: Abandon
Even with several individual instances of Enfeeble 'in effect', since they are not stated to be or worded to be cumulative, the most that can be counted to be on the unit is one. As either a specific or general(however you want to look at it) instance of the power being in effect creates adds its modifiers only once and in neither case are they cumulative, there can be only one.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause
Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause
Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.
Still waiting for you to actually prove anything, Nos.
SJ
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
PrinceRaven wrote:So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?
No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?
No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.
PrinceRaven is correct, DeathReaper is off base. Both sides have a legitimate argument, due to the ambiguous wording used on pg. 68, "different powers are cumulative". What constitutes "different powers"? The "permission to resolve" side believes all powers are cumulative, making the thrice repeated "different powers are cumulative" statement meaningless. The "different =/= same" side believes "different powers" means "differently named powers" not "same power from different caster".
The issue is irreconcilable because both sides are technically correct, netting two opposite results: Stacking vs Non-Stacking. Since both sides cannot be right in this debate, one has to be more right than the other. Currently, the Stacker side believes they are more right because they deny the core argument of the Non-Stackers. The Non-Stackers believe they are more right because of the logic chain printed in the BRB points to a "non-cumulative without permission" theme that appears to carry over to psychic powers due to the "unless otherwise noted" clause to the "different powers are cumulative" rule. Non-Stackers do not deny the "permission to resolve" argument, they simply believe "permission to resolve" does not take into account an additional set of rules. The Stackers believe that additional set if rules do not apply.
Irreconcilable argument, requiring an FAQ or Errata to resolve.
SJ
45429
Post by: Iranna
I feel like I've entered a time warp into the past... how intriguing.
HIWPI is that they do stack, that's how we've House-ruled it round here to save any debate. Although, the majority of players are in agreement with Nos, DReaper, rigeld2 and the like.
Iranna.
68289
Post by: Nem
Iranna wrote:I feel like I've entered a time warp into the past... how intriguing.
HIWPI is that they do stack, that's how we've House-ruled it round here to save any debate. Although, the majority of players are in agreement with Nos, DReaper, rigeld2 and the like.
Iranna.
I disagree with the statement of most players. First poll result I found on Google, for Dakka, for maledictions showed over 250 participants with 51% in favour of not stacking - this is about as split as it can be. There have been many different ones but none show a clear majority either way. It's worth asking the question whenever you play outside your meta. I asked 2 friends today, one was a instant yes one was a instant no. Both knew they were right.
At the end of the day it tells us 3 times on one page the effects of different pp's are cumulative, in the rules for resolving the power, and under the rules for both maledictions and blessings. Not one mentions the same stack, and they could have just ommitted the word different from any of them if it was the case the same should be cumulative.
45429
Post by: Iranna
Nem wrote:
I disagree with the statement of most players. First poll result I found on Google, for Dakka, for maledictions showed over 250 participants with 51% in favour of not stacking - this is about as split as it can be. There have been many different ones but none show a clear majority either way. It's worth asking the question whenever you play outside your meta. I asked 2 friends today, one was a instant yes one was a instant no. Both knew they were right.
I think you misread my post, I meant the majority of players in my area.
Iranna.
68289
Post by: Nem
Iranna wrote: Nem wrote:
I disagree with the statement of most players. First poll result I found on Google, for Dakka, for maledictions showed over 250 participants with 51% in favour of not stacking - this is about as split as it can be. There have been many different ones but none show a clear majority either way. It's worth asking the question whenever you play outside your meta. I asked 2 friends today, one was a instant yes one was a instant no. Both knew they were right.
I think you misread my post, I meant the majority of players in my area.
Iranna.
Ah right apologies, were pretty much 50 / 50, but we play its cumulative
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?
No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.
PrinceRaven is correct, DeathReaper is off base. Both sides have a legitimate argument, due to the ambiguous wording used on pg. 68, "different powers are cumulative". What constitutes "different powers"? The "permission to resolve" side believes all powers are cumulative, making the thrice repeated "different powers are cumulative" statement meaningless. The "different =/= same" side believes "different powers" means "differently named powers" not "same power from different caster".
The "different powers are cumulative" statement is not meaningless it is a reminder...
The issue is irreconcilable because both sides are technically correct
No they aren't, the does not stack side has not produced any rules that restrict the second casting from resolving. (They say it is not needed as they must tell you they can stack for them to stack but then do not produce any rules backing this position when the other side shows RAW proof of stacking).
They are simply handwaving the fact that nothing restricts psychic powers from resolving. They are also trying to impose a restriction that is not in the rules.
"different powers are cumulative" does not mean same powers are not cumulative. It is a fallacy on the non stacking side of the argument.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Indeed, one side has rules that agree with them, the other side is inferring a restriction, and is therefore currently in error as far as RAW goes.
I'm going the simpler route, which is you are told 4-1-1=2
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?
No, we have one side showing proof that you can cast and resolve twice and the other not finding a restriction and making up a requirement that is not actually printed in the rules.
PrinceRaven is correct, DeathReaper is off base. Both sides have a legitimate argument, due to the ambiguous wording used on pg. 68, "different powers are cumulative". What constitutes "different powers"? The "permission to resolve" side believes all powers are cumulative, making the thrice repeated "different powers are cumulative" statement meaningless. The "different =/= same" side believes "different powers" means "differently named powers" not "same power from different caster".
The "different powers are cumulative" statement is not meaningless it is a reminder...
The issue is irreconcilable because both sides are technically correct
No they aren't, the does not stack side has not produced any rules that restrict the second casting from resolving. (They say it is not needed as they must tell you they can stack for them to stack but then do not produce any rules backing this position when the other side shows RAW proof of stacking).
They are simply handwaving the fact that nothing restricts psychic powers from resolving. They are also trying to impose a restriction that is not in the rules.
"different powers are cumulative" does not mean same powers are not cumulative. It is a fallacy on the non stacking side of the argument.
Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct. In point of fact, the Non-Stacking side has presented valid evidence from the body of rules as written. The Stacking side, on the other hand, continues to present no counter argument, as their tactic in this debate is one of refusal of evidence rather than counter evidence.
Nos says I "hand-wave" my argument into existence, despite multiple pages of citations and quoted rules to the contrary. Yet, Nos has on his own "hand-waved" out of existence an entire section of rules that have an impact on his argument. I have yet to see the Stacking side present a full argument as counterpoint to the Non-Stacking argument. Simply saying the Stacking side has produced no evidence is to ignore dozens of pages of presented evidence found in over 45 pages of thread on this very subject.
Which is to say, you are incorrect, sir.
SJ Automatically Appended Next Post: nosferatu1001 wrote:Indeed, one side has rules that agree with them, the other side is inferring a restriction, and is therefore currently in error as far as RAW goes.
I'm going the simpler route, which is you are told 4-1-1=2
Still awaiting these rules you say agree with your view of the topic. While "4-1-1" does indeed equal "2", "4-E-E-E" still equals "4-E" if "E" is non-cumulative.
SJ
61964
Post by: Fragile
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause
Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.
I agree, psychic powers stack in most cases, Protect, Horrify, etc.. I do not think Enfeeble stacks with itself due to its wording. Whilst this power is in effect is the clause that negates stacking. The unit is either enfeebled or it isnt. If it is, then you apply the -1.
52446
Post by: Abandon
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause
Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.
"Whilst the power is in effect..."
So these words mean nothing to you? Why are you ignoring text? The result of the a successful use of the power is that the power is in effect on the unit. This makes the question of 'how many times can it be in effect on a unit?' very relevant. Unless of course your just going to continue to ignore that line and repeat the 'the effect is a modifier' over and over. In which case it won't matter to you at all but neither will the rules in that case.
"Whilst the power is in effect the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness..."
This is a cause and effect relationship here between the power being 'in effect' and the modifiers. By definition, if the cause(power in effect) is not cumulative, it's effects cannot be increased in either quantity, volume or force(no additional modifiers) by adding more of the cause(power in effect). Therefore it does not matter if modifiers are cumulative as there can be no additional modifiers if the 'Enfeebles in effect' are not cumulative.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I thought we were arguing about Hammerhand, it doesn't have the "Whilst the power is in effect" wording. Plus the wording is ambiguous, it is possible that "the power" refers to that manifestation of Enfeeble rather than Enfeeble in and of itself. In that interpretation of Enfeeble it would be allowed to stack because you would have multiple powers in effect.
61083
Post by: Stormbreed
Abandon has come up with a good point. The actual wording of the rule says while this power is in effect. So enfeeble doesn't seem to stack.
Doesn't change the whole thread though.
Also the BAO FAQ has ruled they do stack. Just food for thinking.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote:Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.
It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the situation we have here.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.
It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the reverse situation we have here.
FTFY
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote: DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.
It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the reverse situation we have here.
FTFY
So you have found something that restricts casting and resolution of two psychic powers on the same target unit?
Did you post it and I missed it?
The base rules allow stacking of Psychic powers, do you agree? If not please cite why, as we have shown clear and indisputable rules that allow a player to cast a psychic power twice on a single unit.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
So you've posted permission for psychic powers to resolve cumulatively I must have missed it. Page and paragraph should be fine.
The it doesn't say I can't argument is not RaW neither is the A implies A logical fallacy you keep using...
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Just because you deny the argument posted, with all the rules in question cited, quoted, stated, re-stated, bolded, underlined, and paraphrased, it does not mean your denial makes you correct.
It does when the rules agree with my argument and disagree with the opposing arguments. Exactly the situation we have here.
Stay waiting on those rules you think proves your case. I posted mine, waiting for you to post yours. Per the forum tenets, prove I'm wrong, don't say I'm wrong.
SJ
68355
Post by: easysauce
FlingitNow wrote:So you've posted permission for psychic powers to resolve cumulatively I must have missed it. Page and paragraph should be fine.
The it doesn't say I can't argument is not RaW neither is the A implies A logical fallacy you keep using...
yup, they need permission, its a permissive ruleset,
none has been given.
no restriction is needed if no permission is given.
the stackers keep hand waving away all the specific powers that DO call out that they stack with themselves, as meaningless,
as well as all the rules talking about different powers stacking, as meaningless,
as well as the references in the special rules section to PP's,
and so on.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:So you've posted permission for psychic powers to resolve cumulatively I must have missed it. Page and paragraph should be fine. The it doesn't say I can't argument is not RaW neither is the A implies A logical fallacy you keep using...
I have several times. We have permission to resolve both psychic powers. resolving the psychic power, in the case of hammerhand, involves adding a +1 Str to the unit. we have it cast twice and there are two +1 modifiers that we need to resolve. Page 2 tells us how to go about 4+1+1 = 6... Therefore Psychic powers have permission to stack.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
I have several times.
We have permission to resolve both psychic powers.
We know you have permission to resolve both castings but you haven't shown permission to resolve them cumulatively thus generating the multiple modifiers for page 2 to become relevant.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:I have several times.
We have permission to resolve both psychic powers.
We know you have permission to resolve both castings but you haven't shown permission to resolve them cumulatively thus generating the multiple modifiers for page 2 to become relevant.
Yes we have. we have permission to cast and resolve both powers. resolving hammerhand applies a +1 strength. and then Page 2 covers cumulative additive effects. I.E. 4+1+1=6
All RAW and you have cited no denial of this permission.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Yes we have. we have permission to cast and resolve both powers. resolving hammerhand applies a +1 strength. and then Page 2 covers cumulative additive effects. I.E. 4+1+1=6
Resolving hammer hand puts a +1 modifier into place. Multiple resolutions of hammer hand do not put multiple +1 modifiers into place. 4+1 = 5
Prove that you resolve power cumulatively so you have multiple modifiers. You can't use page 2 until you have multiple modifiers. Show permission for that because you still haven't.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
FlingitNow,
I decide to cast Hammerhand on unit "A".
1. I declare I am casting Hammerhand.
2. The psyker expends a Warp Charge.
3. I declare the target (which conveniently is the unit).
4. The unit takes a psychic test. Oh look, they rolled a 6.
5. They did not target an enemy so there is no Deny the Witch.
6. I resolve the psychic power, by adding +1 strength.
An attached IC decides to also use Hammerhand on unit "A'.
1. I declare I am casting Hammerhand.
2. The psyker expends a Warp Charge.
3. I declare the target (which conveniently is the unit).
4. The unit takes a psychic test. Oh look, they rolled a 6.
5. They did not target an enemy so there is no Deny the Witch.
6. I resolve the psychic power, by adding +1 strength.
Why are you not allowing me to resolve the second hammerhand? Where is your rule denying me permission to resolve the psychic power?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
You resolve the 2nd power it just has no additional effect because they already have a hammer hand in effect. Unless hammer hand is cumulative with itself which you haven't shown to be true.
49698
Post by: kambien
6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.
46128
Post by: Happyjew
kambien wrote:6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.
What decision? The power says the unit has +1 Strength. Therefore to resolve the power, the unit must have +1 Strength. If the unit does not have +1 Strength, the power has not been resolved.
49698
Post by: kambien
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolve
the definition of resolve is to make a decision/determine the outcome.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
What decision? The power says the unit has +1 Strength. Therefore to resolve the power, the unit must have +1 Strength. If the unit does not have +1 Strength, the power has not been resolved.
This is demonstrably false in the case of say enfeeble. But in this case the unit already has that +1 strength from hammerhand thus as hammerhand has no permission to be resolved cumulatively with itself no further +1 is given from multiple castings thus we never have multiple modifiers.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Happyjew wrote:kambien wrote:6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.
What decision? The power says the unit has +1 Strength. Therefore to resolve the power, the unit must have +1 Strength. If the unit does not have +1 Strength, the power has not been resolved.
The unit already has a +1 S from the first Hammerhand. Hammerhand gives a unit a +1 S. If the unit already has a +1 S from Hammerhand, there is no addition effect if more Hammerhands are applied.
Prove Hammerhand is cumulative, and you prove your point.
SJ
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote: Happyjew wrote:kambien wrote:6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.
What decision? The power says the unit has +1 Strength. Therefore to resolve the power, the unit must have +1 Strength. If the unit does not have +1 Strength, the power has not been resolved.
The unit already has a +1 S from the first Hammerhand. Hammerhand gives a unit a +1 S. If the unit already has a +1 S from Hammerhand, there is no addition effect if more Hammerhands are applied.
Prove Hammerhand is cumulative, and you prove your point.
SJ
Already have proven it.
What does resolving hammerhand do? (A: gives +1 Str to the unit).
A second hammerhand would be a second +1 Str to the unit.
Add Page 2 Viola 4+1+1=6
find the restriction, but you can't (And have not produced any rules that restrict the second castings resolution) so they stack, no matter how much you say we need to "Prove Hammerhand is cumulative" we have, you are just ignoring the evidence.
49698
Post by: kambien
is not the definition of resolve
52446
Post by: Abandon
PrinceRaven wrote:I thought we were arguing about Hammerhand, it doesn't have the "Whilst the power is in effect" wording. Plus the wording is ambiguous, it is possible that "the power" refers to that manifestation of Enfeeble rather than Enfeeble in and of itself. In that interpretation of Enfeeble it would be allowed to stack because you would have multiple powers in effect.
I commented when the subject seemed to stray to general use of psychic powers. I do not know the specific wording of Hammerhand so I have refrained from comment on that power in particular.
kambien wrote:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolve
the definition of resolve is to make a decision/determine the outcome.
This is true. By definition, to resolve something is to make a final determination regarding it. But in this case you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry." Which means the powers entry is the basis for any determinations you will make. By extension this includes the rules for the powers type, shooting rules in the case of witchfires and everything else that may apply. Basically, resolve it according to the rules which are of course what is in dispute.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
It really is... You need to resolve the power, the only way to do this is to apply the powers effects to the unit.
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote:
It really is...
You need to resolve the power, the only way to do this is to apply the powers effects to the unit.
This is not correct either. You cannot modify the strength or toughness on a vehicle for example. resolve does not mean 'immediately apply all end effects'.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote:
It really is...
You need to resolve the power, the only way to do this is to apply the powers effects to the unit.
This is not correct either. You cannot modify the strength or toughness on a vehicle for example. resolve does not mean 'immediately apply all end effects'.
It means to settle it.
How do you settle Hammerhand on a unit with a Str score, you add 1 to its Str score...
52446
Post by: Abandon
Close, more like a final determination ...and deciding what effects can be applied is a part of that process.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I'd just like to point that rulebook does tell you how to resolve psychic powers - "according to instructions in its entry."
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
PrinceRaven wrote:I'd just like to point that rulebook does tell you how to resolve psychic powers - "according to instructions in its entry."
and to do that with Hammerhand you need to apply a modifier to the unit of +1 Str.
Once you have done this you have to do it again if another hammerhand is cast on the unit which = 4+1+1=6.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:I'd just like to point that rulebook does tell you how to resolve psychic powers - "according to instructions in its entry."
and to do that with Hammerhand you need to apply a modifier to the unit of +1 Str.
Once you have done this you have to do it again if another hammerhand is cast on the unit which = 4+1+1=6.
I'll point out again that while 4+1+1 does equal 6, 4+H+H+H will never equal more than 4+H if H is not cumulative. Prove H is cumulative.
SJ
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:I'd just like to point that rulebook does tell you how to resolve psychic powers - "according to instructions in its entry."
and to do that with Hammerhand you need to apply a modifier to the unit of +1 Str.
Once you have done this you have to do it again if another hammerhand is cast on the unit which = 4+1+1=6.
I'll point out again that while 4+1+1 does equal 6, 4+H+H+H will never equal more than 4+H if H is not cumulative. Prove H is cumulative.
SJ
We already have, you are ignoring it. It is not 4+h as resolving H "according to instructions in its entry." has us apply a +1 Str.
We have permission to cast and resolve hammerhand "according to instructions in its entry." and as per the instructions we apply a +1 Str modifier.
We have permission to cast and resolve hammerhand "according to instructions in its entry." again on the same target and as per the instructions we apply a +1 Str modifier.
We look to page two since we have two +1 modifiers and it tells us to add them together. therefore 4+1+1=6
Find the restriction.
But there is no restriction, so you will not be able to find one. Therefore your argument is not correct.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:I'd just like to point that rulebook does tell you how to resolve psychic powers - "according to instructions in its entry."
and to do that with Hammerhand you need to apply a modifier to the unit of +1 Str.
Once you have done this you have to do it again if another hammerhand is cast on the unit which = 4+1+1=6.
I'll point out again that while 4+1+1 does equal 6, 4+H+H+H will never equal more than 4+H if H is not cumulative. Prove H is cumulative.
SJ
We already have, you are ignoring it. It is not 4+h as resolving H "according to instructions in its entry." has us apply a +1 Str.
We have permission to cast and resolve hammerhand "according to instructions in its entry." and as per the instructions we apply a +1 Str modifier.
We have permission to cast and resolve hammerhand "according to instructions in its entry." again on the same target and as per the instructions we apply a +1 Str modifier.
We look to page two since we have two +1 modifiers and it tells us to add them together. therefore 4+1+1=6
Find the restriction.
But there is no restriction, so you will not be able to find one. Therefore your argument is not correct.
We only have permission to apply H to a model. If H is cumulative, then 4+H is 4+[1+1+1+ ...]. If H is not cumulative, 4+H is 4+[1] no matter how many times H is cast. Permission to resolve is not permission to be cumulative. Permission to be cumulative is permission to be cumulative. Hammerhand lacks language affirming it is cumulative. You have not proven Hammerhand is cumulative.
SJ
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
And you have not proved that psychic powers require specific permission to be resolved cumulatively. Don't just handwave this with "permissive ruleset" because that is not what it means, a permissive ruleset means you need permission to do things and we have permission to cast and resolve Hammerhand according to its entry.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
PrinceRaven wrote:And you have not proved that psychic powers require specific permission to be resolved cumulatively. Don't just handwave this with "permissive ruleset" because that is not what it means, a permissive ruleset means you need permission to do things and we have permission to cast and resolve Hammerhand according to its entry.
So you missed the three times written "unless otherwise noted, different powers are cumulative" phrase on pg. 68?
SJ
52446
Post by: Abandon
Just got my hands on the power entry for Hammerhand, noticed an amendment indicating that it happens at the start of the fight subphase after a glance over the GK FAQ... is there any other material regarding this power?
If not I'd have to say Hammerhand does not stack... but it does not have to. Hammerhand happens instantly, you use the power, make your psychic test and then it's over. It does not linger for any duration like a blessing or a malediction. If that test is made they get +1S and that is the only lasting part of the whole chain of cause and effect. So yeah, you can't even try to stack Hammerhand, only the modifiers it creates stick around for any duration, and those definitely stack.
Saying you're stacking Hammerhands is like saying you're stacking Smites... well the modifiers/wounds add up... but the powers never directly overlap so you can't ever really say that happens.
...but if it helps people think of it more easily... sure, you can say they stack.... it's not 100% correct but it's close enough.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
jeffersonian000 wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:And you have not proved that psychic powers require specific permission to be resolved cumulatively. Don't just handwave this with "permissive ruleset" because that is not what it means, a permissive ruleset means you need permission to do things and we have permission to cast and resolve Hammerhand according to its entry.
So you missed the three times written "unless otherwise noted, different powers are cumulative" phrase on pg. 68?
SJ
I must have missed the part that says "unless otherwise noted, multiple manifestation of the same power are not cumulative"
What about the Haywire effect from Objuration Mechanicum, the mind controlling of Puppet Master, the shooting from various witchfires? Are these also subject to this restriction on cumulative psychic powers you have imagined?
52446
Post by: Abandon
Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that.
My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote:Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that. My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.
So you are in agreement that Psychic powers can stack? What about Terrify, if you cast Terrify from two different psykers how many Morale checks must the unit take? (A: should be two) Or Gate of Infinity, can two psykers both cast GoI when attached to a single unit? (A: should be Yes) jeffersonian000 wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:And you have not proved that psychic powers require specific permission to be resolved cumulatively. Don't just handwave this with "permissive ruleset" because that is not what it means, a permissive ruleset means you need permission to do things and we have permission to cast and resolve Hammerhand according to its entry.
So you missed the three times written "unless otherwise noted, different powers are cumulative" phrase on pg. 68? SJ
So you missed that "unless otherwise noted, different powers are cumulative" (68) does not say [Same powers are not cumulative]? Since you can not find a restriction you must concede the argument, as you literally have no rules backing.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: Abandon wrote:Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that.
My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.
So you are in agreement that Psychic powers can stack?
What about Terrify, if you cast Terrify from two different psykers how many Morale checks must the unit take? (A: should be two)
Or Gate of Infinity, can two psykers both cast GoI when attached to a single unit? (A: should be Yes)
jeffersonian000 wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:And you have not proved that psychic powers require specific permission to be resolved cumulatively. Don't just handwave this with "permissive ruleset" because that is not what it means, a permissive ruleset means you need permission to do things and we have permission to cast and resolve Hammerhand according to its entry.
So you missed the three times written "unless otherwise noted, different powers are cumulative" phrase on pg. 68?
SJ
So you missed that "unless otherwise noted, different powers are cumulative" (68) does not say [Same powers are not cumulative]?
Since you can not find a restriction you must concede the argument, as you literally have no rules backing.
Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy. You cannot find any mention of "same powers are cumulative" because no such permission exists. The only permission written is "different powers are cumulative unless otherwise noted", and there are specific powers that do note they are cumulative. However, most powers do not contain verbiage affirming those powers are cumulative. Without such affirmation, per the rules as written, those powers are not cumulative with multiple casting. The comparison to wounding is a false argument, because detailed wounding rules exist in the basic rules of the game that are not superseded by any rules presented under a psychic power (so far). The comparison to Witchfires is false, because Witchfires deal with wounding, and tend to lack secondary effects. Yet even in the instance of a non-wounding secondary Witchfire effect, that effect would be subject to the same restrictions as other psychic powers.
Let me ask you this: How many Difficult Terrain tests must a model make that has three Enfeebles on it? One? Three? Prove your answer with the rules.
SJ
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
The thing is, rules for applying modifiers also exists, but according to people on this threat they are superseded by a restriction on resolving psychic powers if you have already resolved a psychic power of the same name on the unit in question, so why does this restriction arbitrarily supersede modifiers but not shooting attacks for any reason other than it being a made up restriction and therefore subject to made up rules?
As for your question, once, because "If any models in a unit start their move in difficult terrain, they are affected by the terrain and must take a Difficult Terrain test." You see, unlike the strength modifier from Hammerhand, treating terrain as difficult is binary, you cannot treat terrain as being more difficult than it is, but you can increase a unit's Strength further than you already have (until it reaches Strength 10).
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
The thing is, rules for applying modifiers also exists, but according to people on this threat they are superseded by a restriction on resolving psychic powers if you have already resolved a psychic power of the same name on the unit in question, so why does this restriction arbitrarily supersede modifiers but not shooting attacks for any reason other than it being a made up restriction and therefore subject to made up rules?
Wounds are cumulative because they say they are. Modifiers are cumulative because they say they are. Psychic powers are not cumulative with themselves because they don't say they are. They say they are cumulative with different psychic powers.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
So Smite is not cumulative with itself then?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
People that think that psychic powers stack must believe one of these two things is true:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
The "different psychic powers are cumulative" is just a reminder argument. Is frankly bizarre as a reminder. It would be like in the Overwatch rules writing "overwatch shots are snap shots, so you fire at bs1, however you may not fire weapons with the large blast type". The implication of that sentence is that you can fire blast weapons (which RaW you still couldn't) so you would only write that if you were unaware that snap shots prevent all blast and large blast weapons or you are trying to intentionally miss lead the reading into thinking they can fire blast weapons when they can't. This repeated "reminder" makes just as much sense as a reminder. Automatically Appended Next Post: No but smite is a shooting attack and thus follows the rules from that. Thus the wounds caused would accumulate.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
It would be like special rules writing "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." If things are automatically restricted to not be cumulative that statement is a reminder, if things are not automatically restricted to not be cumulative then the "different powers are cumulative" is a reminder, either way we have a reminder.
That's exactly like saying "Hammerhand is a modifier and thus follows the rules from that. Thus the strength gained is cumulative." Smite is a psychic power resolved as a shooting attack, Hammerhand is a psychic power resolved as a strength modifier. If you're going to enforce this restriction you believe is part of the rules at least be consistent.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
So just to clarify what are you saying? Did the writer of the psychic powers rules not know the psychic powers rules or were they intentionally trying to mislead us?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
I believe the people who write the rules are flawed and not as interested in producing a high-quality product as other rules designers. So while it may not be intentional, they do make misleading mistakes.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
It would be like special rules writing "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." If things are automatically restricted to not be cumulative that statement is a reminder
It would be like saying "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule that starts with the letter "S" more than once."
That would imply all other special rules would be cumulative. I'm not saying they don't put reminders in rules but to suggest they put this reminder in the rules means one of the following is true:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
Which is it? Automatically Appended Next Post: So while it may not be intentional, they do make misleading mistakes.
This is not a misleading mistake. They have written that "different powers" they have singled out different powers if they meant all powers why on earth would they single out different ones. I am genuinely interested in why you think they wrote that.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote:Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy.
Not in this case, as we already have permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score.
We are saying "Find the restriction" not "it does doesn't say I can't".
Now since you can not "Find the restriction" your argument is invalid, and you need to concede.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy.
Not in this case, as we already have permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score.
We are saying "Find the restriction" not "it does doesn't say I can't".
Now since you can not "Find the restriction" your argument is invalid, and you need to concede.
I don't believe you understand the nature of the argument. The restriction is plainly written on pg. 68. You don't believe the plainly written restriction applies, calling it a "reminder". I believe the plainly written restriction is a rule that does apply. That is the core of the argument.
I don't need to find a restriction, its already there in plain English. You do need to find permission, because we've pointed out 4 passages from the BRB that inform us what is cumulative and what is not. Per the BRB, modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission. Where is your specific permission? "Permission to cast, permission to resolve" do not mean what you think they mean. Yes, we can cast the same power multiple times on the same target, and yes, the power is applied each time. But is the modifier cumulative or non- cumulative? Per the BRB, the source of the modifier must be either different or have written permission in its own rules. It is your task to locate permission for Hammerhand to be cumulative.
Here's a hint: It doesn't exist in 6th. No where will you find this permission written in 6th. The only place this was written was in the last BRB FAQ released for 5th, and that FAQ was superseded by the very first BRB FAQ released for 6th.
I will accept the fact that your proof is non-existant as a concession on your part that your argument has no substance.
SJ
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy.
Not in this case, as we already have permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score. We are saying "Find the restriction" not "it does doesn't say I can't". Now since you can not "Find the restriction" your argument is invalid, and you need to concede.
I don't believe you understand the nature of the argument. The restriction is plainly written on pg. 68.
It really does not say Same powers are not cumulative... You need to re-read page 68 for what it actually says. You do need to find permission,
I have, you are ignoring it. It is your task to locate permission for Hammerhand to be cumulative.
Again we have already but I will regurgitate it once more so that you can understand it. We are given permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score. There is the permission. Find the restriction because I have proven permission.
75369
Post by: Zhent
So your argument is that Hammerhand is different from Hammerhand? Interesting...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
So Death reaper are you saying:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
Which of those two are you claiming is true?
46128
Post by: Happyjew
Seeing as how the rules were written by a group of people, and not just one, it is possible that different parts were written by different people and there was a mis-communication.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:So Death reaper are you saying:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
Which of those two are you claiming is true?
What are you talking about, I did not say either of those things.
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote: Abandon wrote:Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that.
My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.
So you are in agreement that Psychic powers can stack?
What about Terrify, if you cast Terrify from two different psykers how many Morale checks must the unit take? (A: should be two)
Or Gate of Infinity, can two psykers both cast GoI when attached to a single unit? (A: should be Yes)
Yes to both as neither the moral check from terrify nor the DS from GOI is contingent upon the power being sustained on the unit. Those are one time effects and occur once per successful use of the power, there is no need for them to be cumulative.
How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Wait, Jeffersonian is still claiming the reminder is a restriction? Despite that being a fallacy to do so?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Abandon wrote:How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)
Well Fire shield is a blessing, so it lasts as long as any other blessing til the end of the following turn.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote:So Death reaper are you saying:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
Which of those two are you claiming is true?
What are you talking about, I did not say either of those things.
You're saying when they wrote "different psychic powers are always cumulative" (three times) that it is just a reminder. But to remind some one in this way is misleading because the implication of that sentence is that the same power is not cumulative. Just like if they stated "special rules that start with the letter S are never cumulative with themselves" the implication is that special rules that don't start with the letter S are cumulative with themselves. That's how normal English usage works. So when they wrote that "different powers are cumulative" was it because:
1) the person who wrote the rule did not know that psychic powers are cumulative by default. Or in other words the person who wrote the psychic powers rules doesn't know the psychic powers rules as well as you do.
2) the person who wrote the psychic powers rulers was trying to deliberately mislead us with this half reminder.
So every time you are claim that the different powers are cumulative rules are reminders you are claiming one of the above is true. Which one?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote: DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote:So Death reaper are you saying:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
Which of those two are you claiming is true?
What are you talking about, I did not say either of those things.
You're saying when they wrote "different psychic powers are always cumulative" (three times) that it is just a reminder. But to remind some one in this way is misleading because the implication of that sentence is that the same power is not cumulative. Just like if they stated "special rules that start with the letter S are never cumulative with themselves" the implication is that special rules that don't start with the letter S are cumulative with themselves. That's how normal English usage works. So when they wrote that "different powers are cumulative" was it because:
1) the person who wrote the rule did not know that psychic powers are cumulative by default. Or in other words the person who wrote the psychic powers rules doesn't know the psychic powers rules as well as you do.
2) the person who wrote the psychic powers rulers was trying to deliberately mislead us with this half reminder.
So every time you are claim that the different powers are cumulative rules are reminders you are claiming one of the above is true. Which one?
Neither, it is a simple reminder, nothing more nothing less.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
It is not a simple reminder. It is a reminder that implies that the same psychic powers don't stack. Or are you denying that this sentence implies that. Because if you are then the multiple threads on this topic prove you wrong.
So given it is a reminder that misleads people in a way that is obvious. Which of those two is true? One has to be true if it is a reminder. So which one?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
A) Who says that everything misleading in the rules is intentional?
B) Implied =/= actual rules
50012
Post by: Crimson
Reminder of what? Why we need a reminder about a specific subsection of powers being cumulative in general rules for psychic powers if all powers are in fact cumulative?
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
1) If they wrote "different power are cumulative" as a reminder it is clear from normal English usage the implication is that the same power does not stack. Yes they are not always hot on the exact RaW meaning of what they wrote but this is clear plain English. So they will have known that the implication is that the same power does not stack. So they either knew the same power does stack in which case they are misleading us. Or the person who wrote the rulers on psychic powers stacking does not know the rules for psychic powers stacking.
2) true I'm not claiming the "different powers are cumulative" means that the RaW is the same power is not cumulative (as pointed out I've a different argument on that which has gone in circles for 3 threads).
So you're still making one of those 2 claims. Which is it?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Or it is a remainder that the effects of different powers are always cumulative, because sometimes the effects of multiple manifestations are not.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Or it is a remainder that the effects of different powers are always cumulative, because sometimes the effects of multiple manifestations are not.
Why single out different powers if the same power is cumulative with itself? Why remind people about a subset when it would have been easier remind people about the entire set?
Like if they wrote:
"special rules that start with the letter S are never cumulative with themselves"
Why would you single out special rules that start with S if this was true for all special rules? You'd only do that if you weren't aware it was true for all special rules or you wanted to mislead the reader.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Because not powers have effects that are cumulative with themselves? Because the game designers are only human? Because the rules don't have great quality control? Because they feel like if the didn't deliberately spell it out there would be grognards claiming you couldn't resolve Enfeeble on something already affected by Iron Arm?
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It only implies a restriction if you don't understand basic logic,.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
None of those explanations work in this instance as you well know Prince Raven:
Because not [all] powers have effects that are cumulative with themselves?
It already includes the "unless otherwise stated" clause as you well know so this can't be the reason and is just as valid for different powers.
Because the game designers are only human?
This is not human error unless your claiming that the wording "different" shouldn't be there in which case you need an errata to back you up. Which again you know you don't have.
Because the rules don't have great quality control?
See above.
Because they feel like if the didn't deliberately spell it out there would be grognards claiming you couldn't resolve Enfeeble on something already affected by Iron Arm?
This would hold water if the same wouldn't be true if they removed the word "different" from the rule. Again as you well know just saying "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple psychic powers are cumulative" would have cleared that up without creating confusion. The use of the word different means that either the same doesn't stack, the writer was unaware that the same doesn't stack or the writer was intentionally misleading us.
So please tell me which of the two options you believe to be true or concede.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
Removing the "different" would actually make a huge change, as that would state that all powers are cumulative with themselves when some are clearly not.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
PrinceRaven wrote:Removing the "different" would actually make a huge change, as that would state that all powers are cumulative with themselves when some are clearly not.
Which powers? Name them so I know what you mean.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.
SJ
70551
Post by: Banbaji
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.
SJ
Isn't that why they had to put this in the FAQ, seeing as the RAW in the BRB allowed models to move through other friendly models (enemies were expressly forbidden by the whole not approaching within 1" thing)?
Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules
Also, it is page 4 of the BRB FAQ, first question in the FAQ section.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
FlingitNow wrote: PrinceRaven wrote:Removing the "different" would actually make a huge change, as that would state that all powers are cumulative with themselves when some are clearly not.
Which powers? Name them so I know what you mean.
Off the top of my head; endurance, prescience, guide, catalyst, onslaught, foreboding, perfect timing, telekine dome and invisibility are all clearly non-cumulativewith themselves.
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.
SJ
The rule you're thinking of is actually found in the rulebok FAQ on page 4.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Off the top of my head; endurance, prescience, guide, catalyst, onslaught, foreboding, perfect timing, telekine dome and invisibility are all clearly non-cumulativewith themselves
So you're basically on the non-stacking side except for the odd case where they don't contain the "whilst this power is in effect" wording. Correct? In which case the wording of different would make a difference as these powers could be said to be cumulative with themselves without it.
I'm cool with that and see nothing inherently wrong with that interpretation (as the wording of different has a purpose, other than to deliberately mislead) there's a lack of consistency for my liking but handling differently worded powers differently makes sense.
11373
Post by: jeffersonian000
Banbaji wrote: jeffersonian000 wrote:
Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.
SJ
Isn't that why they had to put this in the FAQ, seeing as the RAW in the BRB allowed models to move through other friendly models (enemies were expressly forbidden by the whole not approaching within 1" thing)?
Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules
Also, it is page 4 of the BRB FAQ, first question in the FAQ section.
The rule in question is an example of an implied rule, as the BRB only implies that models cannot normally move through other models, to which an FAQ later clarified. My point is that implied rules have weight. Another implied rule is that same powers are not normally cumulative, as seen by the different powers are cumulative "reminder".
SJ
50012
Post by: Crimson
We understand basic logic just fine. You however do not seem to understand how language is actually used. "Parking allowed on Sundays" pretty strongly implies that it is not allowed on other days of the week.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Crimson wrote: Reminder of what? Why we need a reminder about a specific subsection of powers being cumulative in general rules for psychic powers if all powers are in fact cumulative?
Why do we need a reminder that we can move some or none of our units? "In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder... Or that "you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent." (12) when we are told "You can always check any distance at any time." (4) Redundant reminder... Why did we need this reminder "Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."(18) when we are specifically told that only shots that go "through the gaps between models in an intervening unit" (18) grant a cover save. Redundant reminder... There are redundant reminders all over that book. Automatically Appended Next Post: Crimson wrote: We understand basic logic just fine. You however do not seem to understand how language is actually used. "Parking allowed on Sundays" pretty strongly implies that it is not allowed on other days of the week.
In that situation there would be a rule on the books that said no parking in that area, the sign would be an exception. Because if there was not a rule stating no parking, then that sign would simply be a reminder. jeffersonian000 wrote:The rule in question is an example of an implied rule, as the BRB only implies that models cannot normally move through other models, to which an FAQ later clarified. My point is that implied rules have weight. Another implied rule is that same powers are not normally cumulative, as seen by the different powers are cumulative "reminder". SJ
The rules actually say that you can not move through a space occupied by another model. "This is an exception to the normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model." (30) The normal rules state what? " that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model." (30)
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper no one is saying the rules don't include redundant reminders so why bring that up? Presumably because you know your argument has no grounds and you're trying to hand wave it away?
It is not a redundant reminder though it is a specific subset reminder that strongly implies the same powers don't stack. So again I ask you which is it:
1) Whoever wrote the Psychic Powers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.
Which is it Death Reaper?
70551
Post by: Banbaji
Crimson wrote:
We understand basic logic just fine. You however do not seem to understand how language is actually used. "Parking allowed on Sundays" pretty strongly implies that it is not allowed on other days of the week.
Actually, it does not necessarily imply that. It simply means somebody wanted to make sure you knew parking was allowed on Sundays. I would park in that lot on any day of the week as long as there isn't some other sign telling me not to. If they wanted to limit me from parking other times, they would have said "Parking only allowed on Sundays".
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yep, redundant language is used all over the book. Apparently THIS redundancy is special. Because.
I've seen throug quotes that Fling is trying for yet more false dichotomies.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:DeathReaper no one is saying the rules don't include redundant reminders so why bring that up? Presumably because you know your argument has no grounds and you're trying to hand wave it away? It is not a redundant reminder though it is a specific subset reminder that strongly implies the same powers don't stack. So again I ask you which is it: 1) Whoever wrote the Psychic Powers rules did not know the psychic powers rules. 2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader. Which is it Death Reaper?
As I have said it is neither of those options. It is a redundant reminder, like so many others. They wrote a misleading reminder, it was probably unintentional.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
As I have said it is neither of those options.
It is a redundant reminder, like so many others
It is not as you well know. The wording different was put in for a reason that reason is according to you not the obvious one to mean not the same then why. Why did they use the wording different. If they meant all powers are cumulative why tell you that different ones are? Why use that wording when they simply could have removed that word and it would have still been the redundant reminder you claim but not deliberately misleading.
Find another example where a redundant reminder is misleading in this way anywhere in the rules.
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
FlingitNow wrote:Off the top of my head; endurance, prescience, guide, catalyst, onslaught, foreboding, perfect timing, telekine dome and invisibility are all clearly non-cumulativewith themselves
So you're basically on the non-stacking side except for the odd case where they don't contain the "whilst this power is in effect" wording. Correct? In which case the wording of different would make a difference as these powers could be said to be cumulative with themselves without it.
I'm cool with that and see nothing inherently wrong with that interpretation (as the wording of different has a purpose, other than to deliberately mislead) there's a lack of consistency for my liking but handling differently worded powers differently makes sense.
My position is that powers with potentially stackable effects are cumulative with themselves as long as they don't have wording that stops them from being cumulative. When it comes to "whilst the power is in effect" powers, the wording could stop them from being cumulative, but depending on your interpretation it also could not. It's frustratingly vague and ambiguous. I generally play it as non-stacking but I'm open to other people's interpretation and if my opponent brings it up pre-game I'll just play it however they do.
50012
Post by: Crimson
In case you genuinely don't get this.
DeathReaper wrote:
"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...
And this would be equivalent if the reminder said: "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your vehicles "
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
Crimson wrote:In case you genuinely don't get this.
DeathReaper wrote:
"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...
And this would be equivalent if the reminder said: "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your vehicles "
I was simply pointing out that it was a redundant reminder, as reminders tend to be...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper wrote: Crimson wrote:In case you genuinely don't get this.
DeathReaper wrote:
"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...
And this would be equivalent if the reminder said: "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your vehicles "
I was simply pointing out that it was a redundant reminder, as reminders tend to be...
And as pointed out no one is claiming GW doesn't have redundant reminders in their rules. Now do you have an actual example from anywhere else in the rules where there is a deliberately misleading example?
69849
Post by: PrinceRaven
The rules for grounding are pretty misleading, as pre-FAQ they indicated that you would remain swooping even if you were grounded.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:And as pointed out no one is claiming GW doesn't have redundant reminders in their rules. Now do you have an actual example from anywhere else in the rules where there is a deliberately misleading example?
I do not think they were being deliberately misleading, I think they tried to convey what they were saying, poorly. However there is another one "Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1." (68)
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote:And as pointed out no one is claiming GW doesn't have redundant reminders in their rules. Now do you have an actual example from anywhere else in the rules where there is a deliberately misleading example?
I do not think they were being deliberately misleading, I think they tried to convey what they were saying, poorly.
Which is what exactly?
However there is another one
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1." (68)
That's the same example and again note the consistent wording of different...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
You do understand that is a different example right?
15582
Post by: blaktoof
If only we knew if "different maledictions" means different types of maledictions or different castings of any malediction even if it is the same....
gg GW gg
26458
Post by: hyv3mynd
blaktoof wrote:If only we knew if "different maledictions" means different types of maledictions or different castings of any malediction even if it is the same....
gg GW gg
Which of course doesn't matter because they don't say "only different maledictions..."
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yep; the entire non-stack is based on inferring a restriction from something that is functionally a reminder.
False dichotomies aside, that's what it boils down to, every time
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different... Automatically Appended Next Post: nosferatu1001 wrote:Yep; the entire non-stack is based on inferring a restriction from something that is functionally a reminder.
False dichotomies aside, that's what it boils down to, every time
Where as the entire stacking argument boils down to completely ignoring the fact that single time they talk about powers being cumulative they refer to different powers. Whilst banding the rest of their argument on a mixture of "it doesn't say I can't" & "A implies A"...
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote:
You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...
There are two examples, they are not identical examples...
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote:
You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...
There are two examples, they are not identical examples...
They are both talking about the same rule though. If you can't see that I can't help you.
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
FlingitNow wrote: DeathReaper wrote: FlingitNow wrote:
You do understand it is in fact the same example just repeated in a subset (maledictions). Again they use the wording different powers (in this case maledictions) which is further evidence that only different powers stack as every time they talk about powers being cumulative they use the word different...
There are two examples, they are not identical examples...
They are both talking about the same rule though. If you can't see that I can't help you.
One is in regards to Blessings. One is in regards to Maledictions, If you can't see that I can't help you.
22508
Post by: FlingitNow
Ones in regard to all psychic powers the other in relation to the subset maledictions. It is also repeated for the subset blessings. But the first one is about all psychic powers.
60145
Post by: Lungpickle
That's the crux of the argument. What are they referring to when they (gw) used the word different.
It's ridicules if we continue to go round and round about this topic because quite simply put both sides think they are right but the ambiguity allows the argument.
HIPI is they don't stack simply because it breaks the game IMHO, and nothing displeases me more than broken games.
How do I determine if it's broken rule? Will it take the fun away for me or my opponent? If yes then it's broken.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
It is a functional rule, and you are told that 1+1 functions as you would expect it to.
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote: Abandon wrote:How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)
Well Fire shield is a blessing, so it lasts as long as any other blessing til the end of the following turn.
The 4+ cover save has no self determined expiration time and is stated outside of the 'while this power is in effect' wording. Fire Shield is not in itself a cover save. It grants a cover save to the unit, by all appearance, permanently. There is nothing stating that when the Fire Shield wears off, the 4+ cover save goes away. The other effect of the power however is contingent upon Fire Shield being 'in effect' and so expires along with it.
So I ask, why do you thing the cover save is limited to 'while the power is in effect'?
31450
Post by: DeathReaper
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".
52446
Post by: Abandon
DeathReaper wrote:If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".
Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.
76982
Post by: Tonberry7
Wow, up to 10 pages now? I can't believe this argument is still going.
Seriously, you either have Hammerhand active, or you don't. It's a bit of a stretch to claim multiple castings of the same with cumulative effects.
If that's how some people want to play it, that's up to them but it tells me a lot about what type of player they are.
I'll be sticking to the rules however which give no permission for Hammerhand to stack.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote:If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".
Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.
Since wounds and hull points modify the units profile explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Tonberry7 wrote:Wow, up to 10 pages now? I can't believe this argument is still going.
Seriously, you either have Hammerhand active, or you don't. It's a bit of a stretch to claim multiple castings of the same with cumulative effects.
If that's how some people want to play it, that's up to them but it tells me a lot about what type of player they are.
I'll be sticking to the rules however which give no permission for Hammerhand to stack.
The rules already given prove you to be wrong.
Stop inserting bias on others, it is really bad form, and leads to people using the Ignore function or the yellow triangle of friendship.
52446
Post by: Abandon
rigeld2 wrote: Abandon wrote: DeathReaper wrote:If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".
Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.
Since wounds and hull points modify the units profile explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.
So you're saying that the benefits and drawbacks from maledictions and blessings are dependent on the power being 'active' on the unit even if the effect does not say 'while this power is in effect'?
|
|