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?

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.

Using the rules for multiple modifiers, hammerhand stacks

Hammerhand stacks.. As for the question in the subject- Nope, normally powers do not.

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.

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.

"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?

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

Not to rumble things up again but WOULDN'T they stack?

No matter which interpretation of the word "different" you take theres no restriction.

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.

 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

Citation stated in the other thread, no point rehashing the arguments in this thread reaper.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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?

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.)

 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

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

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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...

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

 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.

 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.

I'd say it's more denying the antecedant.

Maybe it is an exception that proves the rule?

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...

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

What does everyone think the word "different" from page 68 means in a RAW context to their argument?

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?

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

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.

 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.

as we already have rules that state the accumulation

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

 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.

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).

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.

 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?

I'm still trying to find permission to resolve maledictions on models with 4 limbs.

 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.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
It isn't different, so two castings don't stack.

You're a fan of actual rules.
Cite this one.

 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.

Enough with the "joke" comments in this thread.

Final warning.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FTFY

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

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

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

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


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


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

grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

as we already have rules that state the accumulation

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

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

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

grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?

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

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

Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?

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

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

Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.

Actually it does not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final warning.

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

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

Better?

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

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

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

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

 Abandon wrote:

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

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

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

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

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

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

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

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

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

That has nothing to do with what i just said.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

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

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

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

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

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

That has nothing to do with what i just said.

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

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

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

4+1+1=6. Done

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

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

Better?

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

And you know this how?

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

And you know this how?

Context.

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

Context.

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

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

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

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

And it is utterly nonsensical if same powers also stack.

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

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

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

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

And it is utterly nonsensical if same powers also stack.

By its nature a reminder is redundant.

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

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

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

4+1+1=6. Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 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

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.

 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

That's not much of a counter-argument.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make your view on it true.

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.

Jeffersonian - so you are repeating the utterly debunked argument that psychic powers are special rules?

Surely not, as that would be dishonest.

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

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

 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.

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.

 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.

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

 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.

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

Evidence? What evidence? Before you answer please only reference the psychic power section of the brb or codex powers.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.)

 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.

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

kambien wrote:
incorrect , that is not what resolution means .

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.

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.

 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.

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.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:
incorrect , that is not what resolution means .

That's not what it means?

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

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.

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.

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 .

 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 ?

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.

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.

The psychic power section...the section this discussion is about....really...

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

rigeld2 wrote:
Actually, it's not backwards as has been demonstrated.

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

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?

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).

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.

 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.

Those are less evident than the assumption that differ powers is a redundant reminder.

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.

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

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

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

 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.

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.

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

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.

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

 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."

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.

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

 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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - enough with the personal attacks, you have been reported.

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.

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.

 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

 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.

 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.

 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

 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).

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.

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

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.'

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - enough with the personal attacks, you have been reported.

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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
whcih is that we HAVE permission,

actually i haven't seen this at all, could we get a quote to this so the thread is up to date

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

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.

 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.

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

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.

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.

 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

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.

 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.

 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.

You make a good point, Nem. I can see why wound allocation isn't really the best example to use.

 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!

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

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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

So basically what we've got here is two sides waiting for the other to provide enough evidence to convince them?

 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.

 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

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.

 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.

 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.

 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

 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.

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

 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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

 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.

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...

 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

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

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?

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.

6 is incorrect. you don't resolve a power by adding the modifier. You resolve the power by making a decision about the modifier.

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.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolve

the definition of resolve is to make a decision/determine the outcome.

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.

 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

 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.

 DeathReaper wrote:


What does resolving hammerhand do? (A: gives +1 Str to the unit).

.

is not the definition of resolve

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.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


What does resolving hammerhand do? (A: gives +1 Str to the unit).

.

is not the definition of resolve

It really is...

You need to resolve the power, the only way to do this is to apply the powers effects to the unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


What does resolving hammerhand do? (A: gives +1 Str to the unit).

.

is not the definition of resolve

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'.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


What does resolving hammerhand do? (A: gives +1 Str to the unit).

.

is not the definition of resolve

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...

Close, more like a final determination ...and deciding what effects can be applied is a part of that process.

I'd just like to point that rulebook does tell you how to resolve psychic powers - "according to instructions in its entry."

 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.

 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

 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.

 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

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.

 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

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.

 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?

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.

 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.

 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

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).

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.

So Smite is not cumulative with itself then?

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.

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.

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?