Im mainly thinking about casting hammerhand twice or casting jinx/protect twice as eldar, i cant see anything in the BRB that addresses this one way or the other?
In my personal opinion, and the way I play it, yes. Wait don't shoot!!! And this entire discussion is going to break down to this line right here "Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative," (BRB page 68) it's going to turn into a fight over what "different" means.
Even the line about different powers dosent even mention stacking of powers of the same name and wheather they can or not, does it say what "different" means. :(
Nope! Time to start house ruling! Generally people accept stacking in my experience (I'm pretty sure most people's seer councils rely on it so they can make even marines a 6+ save)
CrownAxe wrote: Powers don't stack because their is a CSM Nurgle power that says it can stack
Why would it have to specify it can stack if powers could stack normally?
Why do they have any of the reminders in the BRB?
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (BRB page 68)
Does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. That would be a completely different rule, and of course it does not exist.
What does that have anything to do with what i said?
The CSM power gives its self permission to stack with its self. If you could stack multiples of the same power normally they wouldn't have put that permission in the CSM power. Ergo you can't normal stack the same power with its self.
Some do, some don't , some may or may not depending on your interpretation of vague wording. You have to say which power(s) you are trying to stack before I can give you a proper answer.
danny1995 wrote: And to Waaaaghpower; Why no popcorn??? I'm hungry!!!
No popcorn until the show starts.
The show is about to start. I'm getting a drink. You guys want anything while I'm up?
To answer the OP, there are two sides to this:
A) They do not stack because, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." and "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
B) They stack, because the first quote does not say "only different psychic powers are cumulative." and "I have permission to cast and resolve power A. I have permission to cast and resolve power A again. Why do you not let me resolve Power A?"
Now prepare for a back and forth of those two arguments.
Let me start then:
Both Hammerhand and Jinx/Protect definitely stack as their effects are capable of being cumulative and they do not have the ambiguous "while this power is in effect" wording that other powers do.
PrinceRaven wrote: Let me start then:
Both Hammerhand and Jinx/Protect definitely stack as their effects are capable of being cumulative and they do not have the ambiguous "while this power is in effect" wording that other powers do.
Come on, let's do this.
Protect/Jinx has the wording only Horrify doesn't. As pointed out this is a hotly debated subject.
Basically RaW there are arguments both ways on some powers (Horrify and Hammerhand for example) but most certainly don't. Also clear RaI is that they don't in general as some powers specifically call out that they stack with themselves which is strong evidence that normally they don't. Also the "reminder" on 3 separate occasions that different powers stack means that either the same powers don't stack or the GW design team are intentionally misleading the reader. This kind of partial reminder makes absolutely no sense yet the pro-stacking side will cling to thus being a reminder and firmly believe the design team are deliberately trying to trick us when writing the rules.
Ah, so it does, I must've read the cliff notes version instead of gf the full one.
Aren't we arguing RAW here, not RAI? Because if we're arguing RAI I say that being affected by a power is not intended to make you temporarily immune to to further instances of that power.
danny1995 wrote: And to Waaaaghpower; Why no popcorn??? I'm hungry!!!
No popcorn until the show starts.
The show is about to start. I'm getting a drink. You guys want anything while I'm up?
To answer the OP, there are two sides to this:
A) They do not stack because, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." and "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
B) They stack, because the first quote does not say "only different psychic powers are cumulative." and "I have permission to cast and resolve power A. I have permission to cast and resolve power A again. Why do you not let me resolve Power A?"
Now prepare for a back and forth of those two arguments.
More to the point
A) they do not stack because special rules do not stack. (long drawn out expiation with many rules cited)
B) they're not a special rule, their psychic powers. (opinion)
A) if it's not a special power then it can't modify the characteristics to begins with. (fact)
RaW there is an argument for literally 1 or 2 powers stacking. Most of the relevant powers state "whilst the power is in effect the target unit... blah blah blah" thus if you cast the power once twice or a thousand times it is in effect and the unit receives the benefit once.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: Ah, so it does, I must've read the cliff notes version instead of gf the full one.
Aren't we arguing RAW here, not RAI? Because if we're arguing RAI I say that being affected by a power is not intended to make you temporarily immune to to further instances of that power.
So your RaI argument is that the GW design team intentionally try to mislead the reader. Really you believe that they are trying to confuse the reader? Why would they deliberately try to mislead the reader?
Crown - you're assuming that the rules never contain redundnant rules, or reminders. Given that they do, and proof had been given previously, your premise is proven false, and your conclusion now lacks support.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Crown - you're assuming that the rules never contain redundnant rules, or reminders. Given that they do, and proof had been given previously, your premise is proven false, and your conclusion now lacks support.
No he's assuming the rules don't contain intentionally misleading reminders which you've failed to disprove.
sirlynchmob wrote: MB) they're not a special rule, their psychic powers. (opinion)
Not sure why it says (opinion) there.
Psychic powers are demonstrably not special rules.
CrownAxe wrote: If you could stack multiples of the same power normally they wouldn't have put that permission in the CSM power. Ergo you can't normal stack the same power with its self.
This is 100% false.
They have redundant reminders all over the place.
Such as P. 69 "Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle by using a Fire Point."
P. 78 "Note that the passengers can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself."
P. 93 "Note that all of the models in a unit firing from a building must target a single enemy unit, as normal."
Etc.
All redundant reminders...
If the passengers can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself normally why is that permission in the Transport/Fire Point rules as a reminder?
@Deathreaper - All of your examples start with "Note that" as in those sentances are specifically reminding you of the how the rules work in those situations. The CSM Nurgle power does not have such language.
Also, to be a redundancy the rules have to have said it before. But no where in the rules does it say Psychic Powers stack with themselves, ergo the CSM psychic power statement of allowing it to be stacked with its self can't be a redundancy
Such as P. 69 "Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle by using a Fire Point."
P. 78 "Note that the passengers can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself."
Whilst redundant reminders they are not partial intentionally misleading reminders.
To be comparable they'd have to say something like this:
Such as P. 69 "Note that, as witchfire is a Shooting attack, a Psyker embarked on a vehicle can target an enemy outside that vehicle if the vehicle is open topped."
Here the functional reminder implies that only open topped vehicles would allow firing of witch fires, rather than any other firepoint.
P. 78 "Note that the passengers embarked on a non-dedicated transport can shoot at a different target to the vehicle itself."
Whilst here they would have been implying the option wasn't open to dedicated transports. Please find an example like above where they remind you of a random subset of permission that would mislead you. Anywhere else in the rules?
CrownAxe wrote: @Deathreaper - All of your examples start with "Note that" as in those sentances are specifically reminding you of the how the rules work in those situations. The CSM Nurgle power does not have such language.
Also, to be a redundancy the rules have to have said it before. But no where in the rules does it say Psychic Powers stack with themselves, ergo the CSM psychic power statement of allowing it to be stacked with its self can't be a redundancy
Yet they also told us that maths works normally with modifiers, meaning stacking - addition usually - works. So yes, it is a reminder.
Fling - I proved the outer class, so no need to prove your ever increasingly specific set of demands. Or do you need the missing link in between the missing link found as well? (Futurama)
Well you can't prove that all the psychic powers that contain "whilst this power is in effect" wording stack, because they don't. That's 90% of relevant powers anyway. My increasing demands for an example? No just any comparable example where they have intentionally misleading "reminders" just any evidence that they ate deliberately trying to mislead us as you claim.
Nos: If all those rules about different powers in the psychic section are just reminders though, what rules are they reminding us about that were used previously?
Special Rules. Special rules even go so far as to tell us we can get special rules from psychic powers.
sirlynchmob wrote: Nos: If all those rules about different powers in the psychic section are just reminders though, what rules are they reminding us about that were used previously?
Special Rules. Special rules even go so far as to tell us we can get special rules from psychic powers.
You know else grants special rules? Wargear and Weapons. I guess that means 2+ DCCW don't stack.
sirlynchmob wrote: Nos: If all those rules about different powers in the psychic section are just reminders though, what rules are they reminding us about that were used previously?
Special Rules. Special rules even go so far as to tell us we can get special rules from psychic powers.
You know else grants special rules? Wargear and Weapons. I guess that means 2+ DCCW don't stack.
You're not helping your case any. The DCCW's are wargear, wargear at least has permission to modify the attack & str characteristics.
The rule for wargear CCw is 2 or more for +1 atk. Not 2 different, not 2 of the same. Just a very specific 2 or more.
but do they get X4 str? or just x2? if a walker has a STR of 2 and 2 DCCW's what is it's str in CC? 4 or 8.
See, they don't stack either, nice red herring though.
if you want to talk about wargear that grant special rules though, how about a unit with stealth, with the warlord trait stealth ruins, and a warlord joined to that unit with stealth. In a ruin, what is their cover save while?
Surely stealth granted from 3 different sources could not be the same right? I mean they're clearly more different than 2 coteaz's right? and they're clearly more different than the same psychic power.
Unlike psychic powers, special rules explicitly state that multiples of the same special rule do not stack. That is why Stealth doesn't stack with itself.
OK here's the long version since we're going to do this again:
pg 418, we can see different psychers can have the same power.
pg 68 we see it mentioned 3 different times
"effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative"
"different blessings are always cumulative"
"different maledictions are always cumulative"
we see from blessings and maledictions they do 1 of 2 things.
Blessings grant a characteristic boost or a Special rule
maledictions either reduce characteristics or inflict a special rule
Either or, not both. so as they do more than just modify characteristics they are a special rule.
pg 32 as the rules from the psychic section are reminding us of.
models might get special rules as the result of psychic powers
and like all special rules models can not gain the benefit of a special rule more than once.
Is stealth the same as stealth weather it's from wargear, a ability of the unit, or a warlord trait? yes
is enfeeble the same as enfeeble no matter who cast it? yes
And lastly if you want to claim that psychic powers are not special rules than p2. Wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristic profile. psychic powers can't
So put as many non special rules on a unit as you wish, they don't have permission to modify the characteristics.
RAW psychic powers don't stack unless they specifically say they can and if they do more than modify a characteristic then they are a special rule. Those are the only 2 options. And as a special rule you can at lest modify the characteristics once instead of none at all.
TLDR :
psychic powers are special rules
if it has the same name, it is the same power
same powers don't stack.
rigeld2 wrote: Psychic powers are not special rules.
Arguments stating such are absolutely incorrect and have no basis in actual rules.
Ya, all those rules that call psychic powers special rules, just use your black highlighter on them.
in other words, you disagree with RAW and just choose to wave the rules away with your hand as you can't quote any to refute my statements or support an opposing one.
Like I said origiannaly. in my short version.
Side A) they do not stack because special rules do not stack. (long drawn out expiation with many rules cited)
Side B) they're not a special rule, their psychic powers. (opinion) ( no rules cited)
A) if it's not a special power then it can't modify the characteristics to begins with. (fact)
is this not simply a case of permission is not granted to stack the powers so the default is off unless specified otherwise?
a power with the same name and the same effect is not different, it is a separate instance of the power but it certainly isn't a 'different' power that is in effect.
Permission is granted to resolve psychic powers according to their entry and no rules that I have ever seen on these threads denies that permission. So the question is whether or not the psychic powers entry allows it stack:
Endurance - Clearly not
Hammerhand - Yes
Enfeeble - Maybe, depending on what "the power" is referring to.
rigeld2 wrote: Psychic powers are not special rules.
Arguments stating such are absolutely incorrect and have no basis in actual rules.
This .
It takes a special poster to continue to argue this in the face of explicit rules otherwise. The rules state they can grant special rules, but this does not mean they are themselves special rules.
Nutty - you need nothing more than the rules for modifiers. You have permission to resolve the power, and permission to resolve 1+1, so you need nothing more than that. You need an actual rule stating that, for psychic powers, you cannot use the rule for modifiers. Of course this cannot be provided by the no stack side, ypso you get ever more bizarre arguments - like the one sirlynch is espousing again, despite the rules clearly stating otherwise, or you get this idea of "implicit" denial, by virtue of other rules somehow applying in general, which the ignores the explicit denial in special rules of stacking special rules. Apparently this omission in the psychic powers section however isn't important. Somehow.
Fling - it's a reminder that modifiers apply. That's all. You can claim whatever you like. Doesn't alter plain fact in this instance. Come up with a rules based argument please.
Fling - it's a reminder that modifiers apply. That's all. You can claim whatever you like. Doesn't alter plain fact in this instance. Come up with a rules based argument please.
So you're still going with in this instance and no where else in the rules the GW design team have decided to deliberately mislead us? I'll take that as you conceding as there is no way I believe for a second that you genuinely believe that is a tenable position to hold.
So we know 95% of powers don't stack 100% RaW. We know that the only argument for the other 5% stacking is based on an assumption psychic powers are resolved cumulatively with themselves (with no permission granted to do so) and that the design team are deliberately trying to mislead the reader. Is there any point continuing arguing.
If you assume psychic powers stack you can prove they stack with an A → A argument. Whilst also claiming the design team are intentionally misleading the reader.
If you believe you need permission to stuff in 40k and that whilst clumsy the design team are not deliberately trying to mislead us then the only conclusion is psychic powers don't stack. Other than that it will just be what has been stated on these pages already repeated over and over.
Believe what you will. I have answered all I will along your line if argument there. It isn't one based in rules, so please desist with making it, or mark it as "rai" as per the tenets.
That is not concession, as I do not believe it is misleading. Only with a basic inability to understand logic would it be misleading, and as I understand these basic concepts, it is not misleading.
You know that any psychic power that grants a modifier stacks, raw. Do not claim otherwise. Only if it further limits itself would permission to follow page two not apply.
Your argument on this remains without grounding, as you insist page two does not apply, and have no rules based reason why
Keep throwing around "misleading" and you may look a tad hypocritical, given the deliberate misrepresentations you are making in your own arguments...
I don't think that it is true for the nurgle power talked about earlier that it is a plain modifier. The power's resolution is a random roll not +x to a stat. If it didn't have the reminder in it's text then the effect would be 1 roll on the table while this power is in effect.
Personally I'd not allow hysterical frenzy to stack for the fact its resolution is a random table and the rule lacks the "reminder".
sirlynchmob wrote: we see from blessings and maledictions they do 1 of 2 things.
Blessings grant a characteristic boost or a Special rule
maledictions either reduce characteristics or inflict a special rule
Either or, not both. so as they do more than just modify characteristics they are a special rule.
Wait, wait, wait. Either/or? Psychic powers only change stats or grant/inflict a special rule?
Let's see
Biomancy
Iron Arm: Bonus to Strength and Toughness AND a special rule.
Enfeeble: Penalty to Strength and Toughness AND a special rule.
Warp Speed: Bonus to Initiative and Attacks AND a special rule.
Pyromancy
Fiery Form: Bonus to Strength AND a special rule.
And that's just out of the BRB. Would you like me to go through the rest of the codices as well?
Special rules modify characteristics.
This does not make everything that modifies characteristics a special rule - which is what the "psychic powers are special rules" people are saying.
Until you can quote a rule saying psychic powers are special rules, they aren't. And that rule doesn't exist in the brb.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Happy - you could do, but on past experience that would not do a huge amount of good.
Every time this thread comes up the no stack side fluster around and never manage to overturn page two. Every time. It really is a tad pointless.
Whilst the stack side never manage to show that page 2 is relevant and rely on the assumptions that both the Design team are intentionally misleading you and that psychic powers stack...
sirlynchmob wrote: we see from blessings and maledictions they do 1 of 2 things.
Blessings grant a characteristic boost or a Special rule
maledictions either reduce characteristics or inflict a special rule
Either or, not both. so as they do more than just modify characteristics they are a special rule.
Wait, wait, wait. Either/or? Psychic powers only change stats or grant/inflict a special rule?
Let's see
Biomancy
Iron Arm: Bonus to Strength and Toughness AND a special rule.
Enfeeble: Penalty to Strength and Toughness AND a special rule.
Warp Speed: Bonus to Initiative and Attacks AND a special rule.
Pyromancy
Fiery Form: Bonus to Strength AND a special rule.
And that's just out of the BRB. Would you like me to go through the rest of the codices as well?
Read the rules for maledictions and blessings and find the word "and" It's not there. the word is "OR" Those are special rules that also modify characteristics.
Iron arm: special rule
Enfeeble: Special rule
Warp speed: special rule
Fiery form: Special rule
and NOS, again I have all the rules that specifically say psychic powers grant special rules, it takes a special kind of poster to keep denying this while still being unable to use any rules to back up his position. Please in the future mark all your arguments HYWPI.
Isn't is odd how the special rules section talks about psychic powers, then psychic powers keeps calling themselves special rules and referring back to the special rule section?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Happy - you could do, but on past experience that would not do a huge amount of good.
Every time this thread comes up the no stack side fluster around and never manage to overturn page two. Every time. It really is a tad pointless.
Whilst the stack side never manage to show that page 2 is relevant and rely on the assumptions that both the Design team are intentionally misleading you and that psychic powers stack...
So +1 isnt a modifier? Odd, it is exactly that. We show it, you ignore it. Round and round again.....
No, there is no assumption. The rules state that 1+1 = 2. S4 +1 +1 is S6, RAW, unless you can PROVE page 2 does not apply. Given you cannot, please refrain from posting further false cl;aims about the rules, and mark your posts appropriately.
Also, there is no assumption I am making that the design team are intentioanlly misleading. DO NOT LIE about others positions, especially when you have been specifically corrected on this. Retract it.
Sirlynch - psychic powers *can* grant special rules. Do you understand the difference between "can" and "do"? You were proven wrong every time, so no I will not mark my posts as anything, as they are RAW.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Happy - you could do, but on past experience that would not do a huge amount of good.
Every time this thread comes up the no stack side fluster around and never manage to overturn page two. Every time. It really is a tad pointless.
Whilst the stack side never manage to show that page 2 is relevant and rely on the assumptions that both the Design team are intentionally misleading you and that psychic powers stack...
So +1 isnt a modifier? Odd, it is exactly that. We show it, you ignore it. Round and round again.....
No, there is no assumption. The rules state that 1+1 = 2. S4 +1 +1 is S6, RAW, unless you can PROVE page 2 does not apply. Given you cannot, please refrain from posting further false cl;aims about the rules, and mark your posts appropriately.
Also, there is no assumption I am making that the design team are intentioanlly misleading. DO NOT LIE about others positions, especially when you have been specifically corrected on this. Retract it.
Sirlynch - psychic powers *can* grant special rules. Do you understand the difference between "can" and "do"? You were proven wrong every time, so no I will not mark my posts as anything, as they are RAW.
pg 2 applies to wargear and special rules. and you claim psychic powers are neither. therefore pg 2 does not apply the way you think it does.
Do you understand blessings and maledictions can, do and very specifically put special rules on units?
I have yet to be proven wrong, I cited all my rules support, if I was proven wrong, then surely you'd have some rules to support your idea? or any at all. But I appreciate your opinion, it helped me address this with a new TO and show him the error of his ways.
@PrinceRaven of course I'm serious and this is what I believe, read my wall of text post. That is the position of someone who believes what they're saying and can prove it RAW.
Just posting to address the "pg. 2" argument. Nowhere on pg. 2 are we given a example of multiples of the same modifier being applied. We are advised that multiplcation/division occur first, followed by addition/subtration, then lastly replacement values. All examples show the application of different types of modifiers. No example shows multiples of the same modifier, until pg. 32, where we are informed that multiples of the same modifier are not cumultive (per the Stealth + Shrouded example).
In short, pg. 2 does not support multiples of the same modifier being cumulative, pg. 2 only informs us on how to apply multiple modifiers of different types. Pg. 32 deals with multiple modifers from the same and different sources. Psychic powers reference the rules on pg. 32, per the "reminders".
Logic, a term thrown around quite a bit in debates like these, does not mean focus on one aspect over all others. The logic of the BRB is that the basic rules that are the foundation of the 40k rule set are found at the front of the book, and more specific rules that add to or modify that foundation are found as you read from front to back. An argument over a passage on pg. 418 is support by rules on pg. 68, which in turn are defined on pg. 32, and follow the foundation set on pg. 2 only after all the bending and breaking from 32 and 68 are applied. That is the logic of the BRB.
Per the Rules as Written, any rule from wargear, terrain, psychic power, or a specific model that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are referred to as Special Rules, and follow the more advanced rules noted on pg. 32. Many posters have a hang up on Special Rules, due to the list of Universal Special Rules provided in the same chapter. While all Universal Special Rules (USR) are "Special Rules", not all "Special Rules" are USRs. Psyker, a USR, informs us rules for using psychic powers are found in the Psychic Powers section of the BRB, for example.
Following the Rules as Written, the answer to the question "are Psychic Powers cumulative?", the answer is, "unless otherwise noted within the power's rules, multiple casting of the same power on the same target are not cumulative."
So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
PrinceRaven wrote: So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
I don't have that codex, so I can't address that one. If you give me the codex & pg # I'll get back to you on that one.
PrinceRaven wrote: So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
That would be Hang Up #2: "Permission to resolve equals permission to apply modifiers equals modifiers are cumulative", a common fallacy.
Permission to resolve is not permission to be cumulative. An example is multiple castings of Enfeeble on a Chimera. Permission to resolve? Yes. Is it cumulative? No.
Look at pg. 25 of the Grey Knights codex. No language is present advising us that the +1 to Str from Hammerhand is cumulative with multiple castings, yet Might of Titan does contain language stating its +1 to Str is cumulative with Hammerhand's +1 to Str. This is an example on the same page of the same codex of the permission required for stacking. The interesting part is that this permission predates 6th edition, implying that in 5th, modifers didn't stack without specific permission. 6th edition has not provided general permission, either, yet does allow specific permission as seen in the 6th Ed Chaos Space Marine codex.
So, let me throw back on to you: where is your permission to allow Hammerhand to be cumulative?
sirlynchmob wrote: pg 2 applies to wargear and special rules. and you claim psychic powers are neither. therefore pg 2 does not apply the way you think it does.
this is only partially correct.
P.2 applies to all modifiers regardless of the source.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." (Multiple Modifiers BRB P. 2)
sirlynchmob wrote: pg 2 applies to wargear and special rules. and you claim psychic powers are neither. therefore pg 2 does not apply the way you think it does.
this is only partially correct.
P.2 applies to all modifiers regardless of the source.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." (Multiple Modifiers BRB P. 2)
As page 2 is the last and least of my argument, are you agreeing that everything else I posted is correct? As I've already shown psychic powers cause special rules, nitpicking about pg 2 does nothing for your case.
especially when you skip over Modifiers = "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify" so if you don't have any modifiers to start with, then you'd never have any multiple modifiers.
but as psychic powers create special rules, they can then modify the characteristics following all the limitations of special rules.
sirlynchmob wrote: As page 2 is the last and least of my argument, are you agreeing that everything else I posted is correct?
No, I never mentioned the rest of your post, my post was specific to one part of your post.
As I've already shown psychic powers cause special rules, nitpicking about pg 2 does nothing for your case.
No you have not.
You have shown that psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules to come into effect. Big difference.
+1 Strength is not a special rule, unless you have a rules quote that proves otherwise...
especially when you skip over Modifiers = "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify" so if you don't have any modifiers to start with, then you'd never have any multiple modifiers.
but as psychic powers create special rules, they can then modify the characteristics following all the limitations of special rules.
Again, psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules, not always.
A psychic power is not a special rule, not sure were you thought you ever had rules to back that.
Arguing about them at this point is all semantics acctually.
They were badly written and some still come from previous editions of the game.
The only real contention at this point with psychic powers is whether "different psychic powers" means powers cast from different psychers or powers with different names.
sirlynchmob wrote: As page 2 is the last and least of my argument, are you agreeing that everything else I posted is correct?
No, I never mentioned the rest of your post, my post was specific to one part of your post.
As I've already shown psychic powers cause special rules, nitpicking about pg 2 does nothing for your case.
No you have not.
You have shown that psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules to come into effect. Big difference.
+1 Strength is not a special rule, unless you have a rules quote that proves otherwise...
especially when you skip over Modifiers = "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify" so if you don't have any modifiers to start with, then you'd never have any multiple modifiers.
but as psychic powers create special rules, they can then modify the characteristics following all the limitations of special rules.
Again, psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules, not always.
If you're not going to meantion the rest of my post, which clearly shows RAW what I've been saying. Then there really is no need to jump to the last point in my post.
pg 32 "a special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons OR A BOOST TOIT'S STR"
If you're not going to meantion the rest of my post, which clearly shows RAW what I've been saying. Then there really is no need to jump to the last point in my post.
pg 32 "a special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons OR A BOOST TOIT'S STR"
Yes a boost to it's str is a special rule. RAW
(Emphasis mine)
a boost to it's str is NOT a special rule.
Note the underlined, this is not true in all cases as "a special rule might"...
Reread what you quoted, it does not say that all +1 stat boosts are a special rule.
Furious charge is a special rule that gives a model "A BOOST TOIT'S STR"
Hammerhand is not a special rule, even though it gives a +1 to str...
The only real contention at this point with psychic powers is whether "different psychic powers" means powers cast from different psychers or powers with different names.
Not really true as both sides of the argument accept that different powers refers to differently named powers not different instances of the same power. So that has been put to bed.
While Hammerhand is not a Special Rule, both the +1 Str and the ability to apply that Str bonus before multipliers count as Special Rules because they bend or break the basic rules of the game.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You have permission to resolve the power, and permission to resolve 1+1, so you need nothing more than that.
This assumes that it is cumulative. If the effect created by the power is not cumulative, then there is no additional +1 as that already exists. More or greater effect(stacking) by adding more of the same is a trait that cumulative things posses. Non-cumulatively, resolving the power twice does nothing more than resolving it once.
I'd be ok with stacking them but the BRB tells us what is cumulative and 'same' powers are not among them.
PrinceRaven wrote:So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
Wording of specific powers aside (don't have a copy of this one) my general claim would be based not on denial but rather a lack of permission to add further effect. A cumulative nature could be assumed if the book said nothing about it anywhere but as the BRB defines what is cumulative for us it seems to me it is something that must be specifically permitted.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You have permission to resolve the power, and permission to resolve 1+1, so you need nothing more than that.
This assumes that it is cumulative. If the effect created by the power is not cumulative, then there is no additional +1 as that already exists. More or greater effect(stacking) by adding more of the same is a trait that cumulative things posses. Non-cumulatively, resolving the power twice does nothing more than resolving it once.
I'd be ok with stacking them but the BRB tells us what is cumulative and 'same' powers are not among them.
PrinceRaven wrote:So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
Wording of specific powers aside (don't have a copy of this one) my general claim would be based not on denial but rather a lack of permission to add further effect. A cumulative nature could be assumed if the book said nothing about it anywhere but as the BRB defines what is cumulative for us it seems to me it is something that must be specifically permitted.
While I do believe that the same power can stack, I disagree with the whole "They stack because of maths" viewpoint.
It's circular logic - they stack because they stack.
Why does it stack?
Because we have permission to add multiple modifiers.
Why do we have multiple modifiers?
Because the power stacks.
While I do believe that the same power can stack, I disagree with the whole "They stack because of maths" viewpoint.
It's circular logic - they stack because they stack.
Why does it stack?
Because we have permission to add multiple modifiers.
Why do we have multiple modifiers?
Because the power stacks.
Agreed. I've pointed this out in several previous threads as well with many of the same people yet they keep saying it as if repetition can make it true.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I believe that same powers do not generally stack but the argument that they are Special Rules is hopelessly flawed IMO.
Happyjew wrote: Just because Special Rules bend or break the basic rules does not mean that every thing that does so is a special rule.
Or are you claiming that Unit Type is a special rule as it bends or breaks the basic rules of the game?
Actually, any rule that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are by definition Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB.
Are Unit Types cumulative? How do Unit Types bend or break to basic rules?
SJ
Basic rule - a model can fire a single weapon in the shooting phase.
Unit Type Monstrous Creature - can fire two weapons in the shooting phase.
Oh, look. Monstrous Creature Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to fire as single weapon.
Basic rule - models can move up to 6" in the movement phase.
Unit Type Beasts can move up to 12" in the movement phase.
Oh look. Beast Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to move up to 6".
Shall I continue?
Please do. Let me know when you get to a point.
SJ
My point is that according to you, Unit Types are special rules (they break basic rules), Melee weapons are special rules (they can grant a Strength bonus), Wargear are special rules (they can grant special rules). Apparently, everything is a special rule according to your "if it bends or breaks the basic rules it must be a special rule" stance.
PrinceRaven wrote: So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
That would be Hang Up #2: "Permission to resolve equals permission to apply modifiers equals modifiers are cumulative", a common fallacy.
Permission to resolve is not permission to be cumulative. An example is multiple castings of Enfeeble on a Chimera. Permission to resolve? Yes. Is it cumulative? No.
Look at pg. 25 of the Grey Knights codex. No language is present advising us that the +1 to Str from Hammerhand is cumulative with multiple castings, yet Might of Titan does contain language stating its +1 to Str is cumulative with Hammerhand's +1 to Str. This is an example on the same page of the same codex of the permission required for stacking. The interesting part is that this permission predates 6th edition, implying that in 5th, modifers didn't stack without specific permission. 6th edition has not provided general permission, either, yet does allow specific permission as seen in the 6th Ed Chaos Space Marine codex.
So, let me throw back on to you: where is your permission to allow Hammerhand to be cumulative?
SJ
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values" - page 2
I have a combination of rules that modify the Strength characteristic in two castings of Hammerhand.
Also, the assumption that all rules are inherently non-cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.
Abandon wrote: The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.
Truth is the BRB does tell us what is cumulative. Same powers are not list as such.
Lasgun wounds aren't explicitly stated to be cumulative, does that mean you can only wound a model with the same Lasgun once?
No, it doesn't, because we have permission to allocate the wounds and explicit permission to do so cumulatively isn't necessary.
Replace "Lasgun" with "Hammerhand", "wound" with "granting +1 strength" and "allocate" with "resolve".
Abandon wrote: The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.
Rules, no, modifiers, yes...
So a unit that has one instances of a non-cumulative rule that says it gets +1T and another instance of the same rule what is the total outcome? +1T. If the rules do not stack the no additional modifiers is added at all.
Non cumulatively
rule + rule = rule
power + power = power
No matter how many times you apply the power you cannot show that more than one instance of it is having an effect without assuming it is cumulative. They do not add up. You cannot even really say there are two of them there without adding them together because that is a total amount after addition. That is the basic nature of non-cumulative things and why it is so easy to overlook mistakes by a highly ingrained automatic process of adding things together. You paint the wall grey then you paint it grey again. Is it now twice as grey? No. You added grey to grey and you got grey. There are not two enfeebles on a unit there is just Enfeeble. Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble ...because it's not cumulative.
Abandon wrote: The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.
Rules, no, modifiers, yes...
So a unit that has one instances of a non-cumulative rule that says it gets +1T and another instance of the same rule what is the total outcome? +1T. If the rules do not stack the no additional modifiers is added at all.
Non cumulatively
rule + rule = rule
power + power = power
No matter how many times you apply the power you cannot show that more than one instance of it is having an effect without assuming it is cumulative. They do not add up. You cannot even really say there are two of them there without adding them together because that is a total amount after addition. That is the basic nature of non-cumulative things and why it is so easy to overlook mistakes by a highly ingrained automatic process of adding things together. You paint the wall grey then you paint it grey again. Is it now twice as grey? No. You added grey to grey and you got grey. There are not two enfeebles on a unit there is just Enfeeble. Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble ...because it's not cumulative.
Except the rule, in this case gives a +1 modifier, it is not simply rule + rule.
One Psychic Power gives +1 and we have permission to cast and resolve that rule.
Another, of the same psychic power gives +1 and we have permission to cast and resolve that rule as well.
Please, just once, find the denial of that permission.
Please, just once, find the denial of that permission.
Never denied it and I don't think I could if I wanted to. I'm just asking for permission to have two of the same power (that then creates the modifier) on the target. Unless you can show they are cumulative you can only effectively have one.
That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.
PrinceRaven wrote: That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.
You use it twice and resolve it twice. If they are not cumulative, how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit? Remember any addition to force or quantity by adding more is treating it cumulatively.
There lies the assumption. You cannot have more than one if it's not cumulative. Non-cumulatively you can use it and resolve it all you want and the number will not change.
nosferatu1001 wrote: As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.
PrinceRaven wrote: That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.
You use it twice and resolve it twice. If they are not cumulative, how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit? Remember any addition to force or quantity by adding more is treating it cumulatively.
There lies the assumption. You cannot have more than one if it's not cumulative. Non-cumulatively you can use it and resolve it all you want and the number will not change.
Hammerhand is not "in effect" on the unit, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength. Then I cast Hammerhand again, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength.
nosferatu1001 wrote: As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You gain +1 strength on the model for each Hammerhand cast until it is at strength 10. Nice try though.
nosferatu1001 wrote: As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.
nosferatu1001 wrote: As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.
So -1W is cumulative, but +1S isnt?
Nice try though..
las guns don't even cause wounds , no weapon does. This argument is flawed form the start
A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality
Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.
Stratos wrote: Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.
The no stacking side makes zero assumptions and follows what is written. The stacking side assumes that powers inherently stack and assumes the writers are intentionally misleading us by repeatedly "reminding" us that different powers stack with never stating that the same powers stack.
Stratos wrote: Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.
The no stacking side makes zero assumptions and follows what is written. The stacking side assumes that powers inherently stack and assumes the writers are intentionally misleading us by repeatedly "reminding" us that different powers stack with never stating that the same powers stack.
I'm sorry but this is your assumption on what some people are saying. Does not appear to be the general consensus. Intentionally misleading?
I have no opinion i read the topic objectively and it must be said your "side" is making plenty of assumptions.
I, for one, do not have enough faith in the writers' abilities to say that any misleading they do is intentional.
The no stacking side has made a number of assumptions, including:
- Psychic powers are special rules
- Different powers stacking means multiple iterations of the same power don't rather than some powers are cumulative and some aren't
- Everything is inherently non-cumulative despite only the special rules section stating this to be the case
- Every other rule that would be affected by treating all rules as non-cumulative is exempt from this ruling
- The multiple modifiers rule only applies when the modifiers come from different sources
- In "Whilst the power is in effect" powers, "the power" does not refer to that manifestation of the power, but the power in and of itself (granted, those who insist that these powers definitely stack make the reversed assumption)
- Other powers that don't have this wording are still treated as if they do
I'm sorry but this is your assumption on what some people are saying. Does not appear to be the general consensus. Intentionally misleading?
Well they claim they have multiple modifiers and then use page 2 to stack them. They only have multiple modifiers if psychic powers resolve cumulatively. Hence they assume psychic powers stack as part of their argument on why psychic powers stack had you read the thread you'd have already known this.
Of course it is intentionally misleading the only reason you would remind the reader 3 times that different powers stacked was if you didn't want the same power to make stack or you want people to believe the same power didn't stack. Why else specifically call out different powers every single time you talk about powers stacking?
The no stacking side has made a number of assumptions, including:
- Psychic powers are special rules not everyone on tge stacking side believes this and those that do have posted rules that lead them to this belief which means it is not an assumption. - Different powers stacking means multiple iterations of the same power don't rather than some powers are cumulative and some aren't no one has said this. We have said that this illuatrates that the writer did not believe the same power stacks with itself as default - Everything is inherently non-cumulative despite only the special rules section stating this to be the case we are assuming nothing unless told otherwise - Every other rule that would be affected by treating all rules as non-cumulative is exempt from this ruling no assumptions made some rules tell you how to resolve them cumulatively and some don't - The multiple modifiers rule only applies when the modifiers come from different sources no one has said this all they've said is that multiple modifiers only applies if you have multiple modifiers... - In "Whilst the power is in effect" powers, "the power" does not refer to that manifestation of the power, but the power in and of itself (granted, those who insist that these powers definitely stack make the reversed assumption) you mean like everyone dies for every other instance where similar wording in used (Waagh banners for example) - Other powers that don't have this wording are still treated as if they do [b] or more accurately they are still treated like any other power. Whilst it is undeniable that powers with that wording don't stack other powers still lack permission to stack despite your side wanting them to.
NOpe, Fling is ignoring rules, and making an assumption that , despite being explicitly told otherwise and to stop lying, the no-stack side believes the designers are intentionally misleading.
I'll just go with 4+1+1 = 6, seems easiest that way.
Stratos wrote: Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.
Wouldn't Occam go,
The no stacking side can quote man rules from the psychic power section, that support powers not stacking.
The stacking side can't. They also throw the red herring of "It's just a +1 modifier" to take focus away from what the power in question does.
so we can go with RAW, they don't stack, or opinions and misleading arguments to make them stack.
If you can't find any rules in the psychic section to support your case, then you have no case.
They can quote rules from the psychic powers section to support different rules stacking, I've yet to see one that support same powers not stacking.
As far as rules quotes, how's this?
"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."
"If the psychic test is pass, all models in the unit (including Independent Character) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase."
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
If the unit does not gain +2 strength for having both Hammerhands cast on it, both the resolving psychic powers and multiple modifiers rules are being broken.
I have clear permission here to resolve the second Hammerhand and apply the modifier, now until someone can cite me a single rule that provides denial I'm going to tell every Grey Knight player I meet that they can stack Hammerhand to their heart's content.
I say it has nothing to do with the affect of psychic powers being a rule or not, the hangup for me is in the defining sentence of 'different powers'.
RAW that means they cannot stack to me.
But unlike some of the more bitter and unyielding people on here that need to be right, I can see how there could be a case for both sides in this arguement. It is a shame we have ANY side on this one that says 'I am RAW, you are HYWPI because I am awesome'. Some people just can't swallow pride.
nosferatu1001 wrote: NOpe, Fling is ignoring rules, and making an assumption that , despite being explicitly told otherwise and to stop lying, the no-stack side believes the designers are intentionally misleading.
I'll just go with 4+1+1 = 6, seems easiest that way.
Oh dear Nos that's a pretty embarrassing post. You tell me to stop lying despite having never done so. Whilst repeatedly lying in the very post. We know that your argument is based on the assumption that the design team is intentionally misleading the reader as I've proven.
We know I'm not ignoring any rules as you can't point to one I'm ignoring. So that is yet another lie.
Then the bizarre lie at the end about the no stacking side requiring you to assume the writers are misleading the reader when we've made no such assumption and our argument as you well know isn't based on that unlike your argument. So please accept the truth that your side requires the writers to be intentionally misleading the reader. If you fail to acknowledge that fact (or prove it false) then I'll take that as you conceding.
Unfortunately, a statement that different powers stack says absolutely *nothing* about same powers. It is a logical fallacy - one commmited by the no stack side - to claim that this means that same powers do NOT stack.
PrinceRaven wrote: They can quote rules from the psychic powers section to support different rules stacking, I've yet to see one that support same powers not stacking.
As far as rules quotes, how's this?
"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."
"If the psychic test is pass, all models in the unit (including Independent Character) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase."
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
Why are you afraid to finish the first quote?
"unless otherwise stated the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" It's right there as part of resolving the power. Under psychic powers we are specifically given permission for only different powers to stack. If the different powers rule is just a reminder as some claim, then it can only be reminding of of the special rule "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" isn't it odd that the stacking side, keeps being called a reminder while not actually showing what it's reminding us of?
So you can resolve the power, you just have no permission for it to be cumulative. Does it's entry say it's cumulative?
then you totally ignore the first paragraph of modifiers "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics.
If you don't have a modifier, you can't have multiple modifiers. qed.
So you're wrong from the start of resolving and get more wrong.
if the psychic powers are not special rules, then why when you read through special rules it mentions psychic powers and when you read through psychic powers, maledictions and blessings say they grant special rules? If it's just an assumption, than it is definitely an assumption backed by many rules. While saying "but there not" is just an opinion.
whenever a chreature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules it is represented by a special rule.
we're talking about special rules early because many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here.
If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, waddles like a duck, and calls itself a duck, then it must be a duck. and it 100% RAW.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Unfortunately, a statement that different powers stack says absolutely *nothing* about same powers. It is a logical fallacy - one commmited by the no stack side - to claim that this means that same powers do NOT stack.
A → A is also a logical fallacy. I do understand basic logic but the rules writers clearly don't and I see no reason to assume that they require the reader to understand it. You're also lying as you know we have not stated that the fact that they've said different powers stack logically means that the same powers don't. However normal English usage certainly implies that particularly when it is repeated 3 times and used in every single instance where they talk about psychic powers stacking.
Now we can prove that different powers stack and that multiple modifiers stack using the normal mathematical process. Can you prove that you have permission to stack the same power with out assuming that the same power is resolved cumulatively with itself? Got any rules to support page 2 being relevant?
There is no permission for them to do so under psychic powers.
Psychic powers that are different but affect the same stat do stack.
As there is permission for them to do so under psychic powers.
General rules do not trump specific rules, the psychic power section is specific about what can stack, the general rule for how to apply things that are allowed to stack on p.2 has no bearing if the modifiers are not allowed to stack.
You may resolve your power as normal, it just results in a modifier that may not cumulatively add(or subtract) from the stat in question.
In a permissive rules set if there is no permission for same powers to stack, the omission of what that means is that there is no permission for them to stack. If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.
blaktoof wrote: If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.
They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.
blaktoof wrote: If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.
They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.
Permissive rule set remember? You need to find it stated plainly that same powers stack.
blaktoof wrote: If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.
They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.
p.68 BRB
Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are
always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take
characteristics above 10 or below l.
There is permission for different powers to stack.
There is no permission for same powers to stack.
I did not make up the rulebook.
If the blessing you are using specifically states that it is cumulative as per the BRB? No? then its not.
I appreciate your pointless and unfounded comments on what I have and have not invented, to try and prove my point, but I do not have a personal point. I am merely stating what the rules RAW are.
there are some powers that specifically state they stack with themselves, and then there are those that do not.
As per the RAW on p.68, if they do not otherwise state that they stack, they do not stack.
again these are not things I invented, or made up. They are plainly written in the BRB.
blaktoof wrote: If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.
They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.
p.68 BRB
Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are
always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take
characteristics above 10 or below l.
There is permission for different powers to stack.
There is no permission for same powers to stack.
I did not make up the rulebook.
If the blessing you are using specifically states that it is cumulative as per the BRB? No? then its not.
I appreciate your pointless and unfounded comments on what I have and have not invented, to try and prove my point, but I do not have a personal point. I am merely stating what the rules RAW are.
there are some powers that specifically state they stack with themselves, and then there are those that do not.
As per the RAW on p.68, if they do not otherwise state that they stack, they do not stack.
again these are not things I invented, or made up. They are plainly written in the BRB.
Can you quote where it is, and I'll quote you, "saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative""? Because it's not in the rules quote you provided.
Oh, you're making an assumption? Gotcha. So where is the denial to apply page 2 Multiple Modifiers? I'm sure you just forgot to cite it, like you forgot to support your statement with an actual rule.
It's not plainly stated - you're making an inference based on a lack of statement. That's what you invented - the fact that it's plainly stated.
blaktoof wrote: You have permission for different powers to stack.
You do not have permission for any other type of psychic power to stack.
I did not invent that, you are actually trolling and making personal attacks by claiming things I am doing that are untrue.
You invented that it's stated plainly. I can tell because you again refused to cite where it's stated plainly that same powers do not stack.
It isn't stated plainly - I challenge you to prove that it is. Find one rule - anywhere in the rulebook - that plainly states same powers do not stack.
That's what you need to find to show that you did not invent anything. You stated it as fact that the rulebook "plainly" states same powers do not stack.
That's an absolute fabrication.
can you show me where it says you have permission for the same psychic power to stack?
Do the powers apply modifiers?
Page 2, Multiple Modifiers.
blaktoof wrote: You have permission for different powers to stack.
You do not have permission for any other type of psychic power to stack.
I did not invent that, you are actually trolling and making personal attacks by claiming things I am doing that are untrue.
You invented that it's stated plainly. I can tell because you again refused to cite where it's stated plainly that same powers do not stack.
It isn't stated plainly - I challenge you to prove that it is. Find one rule - anywhere in the rulebook - that plainly states same powers do not stack.
That's what you need to find to show that you did not invent anything. You stated it as fact that the rulebook "plainly" states same powers do not stack.
That's an absolute fabrication.
can you show me where it says you have permission for the same psychic power to stack?
Do the powers apply modifiers?
Page 2, Multiple Modifiers.
You do realize your inferring that because there is nothing saying you do not have permission for the same power to stack that they do stack, and using that rule to invent that somewhere it gives you permission for the same powers to stack.
There is no where in the BRB that says "same psychic powers stack"
There is somewhere in the BRB that says "Different psychic powers stack"
from this you invent the rule that "same powers stack" because it doesn't say they cant. Which of course ignores the idea of "permissive rules set' which many people believe the game exists in.
Then you support it with the very general rule with how to apply modifiers that are cumulative.
However you have done this by completely making up a rule, then claiming the method for applying things that -are- cumulative- is the basis that all modifiers are cumulative. Which is actually a second made up rule.
It also doesn't say i cant spend 1850 points on a hammer and smash my opponents models off the table, then say they lost because they have no models on the table at the end of their turn, because things that it doesn't say are not rules.
blaktoof wrote: You do realize your inferring that because there is nothing saying you do not have permission for the same power to stack that they do stack, and using that rule to invent that somewhere it gives you permission for the same powers to stack.
No, I'm not.
I have permission to resolve both powers. Correct?
Part of resolving the power is applying the text of the power. Correct?
What does the text of the power require me to do? Add 1 to a model's S? How do I do that? I look at Modifiers! Oh - he already has a Modifier. Let's look at Multiple Modifiers!
Cite where I've invented a rule.
However you have done this by completely making up a rule, then claiming the method for applying things that -are- cumulative- is the basis that all modifiers are cumulative. Which is actually a second made up rule.
Yeahno.
Have you found the rule that's plainly stated yet? I'm surprised it's taking you so long - perhaps you were overzealous in your summation? Would you like to retract the fact that it's plainly stated?
Im sorry that you are completely wrong and unable to accept it.
your point will be considered conceded until you can find permission for -same- psychic powers to be cumulative, when only -different- psychic powers being cumulative have been given permission within the permissive rules set of 40k.
Until then I refer you to my above post which clearly shows you have completely invented two rules to make psychic powers that are the same stack.
blaktoof wrote: Im sorry that you are completely wrong and unable to accept it.
your point will be considered conceded until you can find permission for -same- psychic powers to be cumulative, when only -different- psychic powers being cumulative have been given permission within the permissive rules set of 40k.
Until then I refer you to my above post which clearly shows you have completely invented two rules to make psychic powers that are the same stack.
So still no citation of rules to support your "plainly stated" statement, and no retraction of same?
Not even going to address how I supported my rules argument with examples?
You can consider my point whatever you want, but I will not concede to bullying and lies.
nosferatu1001 wrote: NOpe, Fling is ignoring rules, and making an assumption that , despite being explicitly told otherwise and to stop lying, the no-stack side believes the designers are intentionally misleading.
I'll just go with 4+1+1 = 6, seems easiest that way.
The brb explicitly states different powers don't stack so the rules for a specific power would have to say otherwise for example such as Enfeeble which does not. I find nothing in the rules related to this misleading.
rigeld2 wrote: I have permission to resolve both powers. Correct?
This is correct, you have permission to cast hammer hand from an IC onto a unit he is joined to. you also have permission to cast Hammerhand from the unit itself. I have not found any denial of this permission.
Part of resolving the power is applying the text of the power. Correct?
Of course. otherwise Psychic powers would be useless.
What does the text of the power require me to do? Add 1 to a model's S?
Correct, Hammerhand adds +1 to the Str of all models in a particular unit.
How do I do that? I look at Modifiers! Oh - he already has a Modifier. Let's look at Multiple Modifiers!
Again this is correct. you have two +1 modifiers after you cast hammerhand twice on a single unit.
Cite where I've invented a rule.
You have not invented a rule as far as I can tell. There are no rules quotes I can find to disprove your statement. Ergo they must be correct.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.
You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.
Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.
SJ
Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.
actually the RAW fully permit different psychic powers to stack, not the same. That's how writing works. What is written as being permissive is permissive. What is not written, is not permissive, because its not written. If the written rules fully permitted it they would say "multiple uses of the same psychic power are cumulative". or anything to that effect.
I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.
I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
nosferatu1001 wrote: A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality
las guns do not cause wounds , having been assigned a wounding hit with no save or failing your save is the only way to put wounds on (excluding special rules). I don't know about DE rules , perhaps you would like to fully quote the relevant rules for them ?
Blaktoof, - so when you go to resolve the second modifier, as per page two, why do you jump in and deny the permission? Page and graph.
Your argument against general permission means you agree you cannot deploy models in a ruin, on the second floor, where the ruin is facing your long table edge. Because there are no explicit statements to that effect.
The fact there doesn't need to be is what allows same powers to stack in effect
Still waiting for you to prove your assertion - that the rule book PLAINLY STATES that same powers cannot stack - have you proven it yet? Found the quote? Or will you retract it and apologise for lying?
nosferatu1001 wrote: A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality
las guns do not cause wounds , having been assigned a wounding hit with no save or failing your save is the only way to put wounds on (excluding special rules). I don't know about DE rules , perhaps you would like to fully quote the relevant rules for them ?
Power through pain. Look it up, not hard to find.
Las guns DO cause wounds. Without the model having a las gun to fire, it could not roll to hit, if hit then to wound, and so on. The initial cause of the wound is the las gun.
nosferatu1001 wrote: A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality
las guns do not cause wounds , having been assigned a wounding hit with no save or failing your save is the only way to put wounds on (excluding special rules). I don't know about DE rules , perhaps you would like to fully quote the relevant rules for them ?
Power through pain. Look it up, not hard to find.
Las guns DO cause wounds. Without the model having a las gun to fire, it could not roll to hit, if hit then to wound, and so on. The initial cause of the wound is the las gun.
see your totally off base
Units select targets
Models make attacks ( modified by weapon profile)
successful attacks become hits
Hits ( modified by STR vs Toughness ) cause wounds
Wounds can be negated through cover save / armor save / invul save
failed saving throws and wounding hits with no saving throws cause wounds
unless your trying to go the long about way of saying your army causes wounds
So again , las guns do not cause wounds
Las guns :
1 Determine range
2. Determine number of attacks
3. Determine the strength of the attack
Oh and still waiting for the actual rules quote on your DE thing or are you still making a stand against the tenets of the forum ?
I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.
I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
Why are you not allowing me to resolve the power?
What is the full rules text of this imagined psychic power that only grants a +1 weapon skill? That must be a awesome power to grant you a +1 WS for the rest of the game.
How about we use actual psychic powers, and cite the source for these powers. If you have to go about inventing powers you should realize you don't have RAW.
Happyjew, anything said in this argument on either side will be insulted, argued against, taken out of context, or blatantly ignored. Why bother joining the fray when nothing good will come of it?
Waaaghpower wrote: Happyjew, anything said in this argument on either side will be insulted, argued against, taken out of context, or blatantly ignored. Why bother joining the fray when nothing good will come of it?
When I asked Blaktoof a question, I was hoping he could answer it with an actual rule. sirlynchmob decided it would be better to ask about where this supposed psychic power came from instead of answering. You posted what was supposed to be a gif, however due to an error, it just ended up as a pic saying to check out some site. As such I thought it was spam and asked about it.
Waaaghpower wrote: Happyjew, anything said in this argument on either side will be insulted, argued against, taken out of context, or blatantly ignored. Why bother joining the fray when nothing good will come of it?
When I asked Blaktoof a question, I was hoping he could answer it with an actual rule. sirlynchmob decided it would be better to ask about where this supposed psychic power came from instead of answering. You posted what was supposed to be a gif, however due to an error, it just ended up as a pic saying to check out some site. As such I thought it was spam and asked about it.
In all fairness though, I need more information before I can answer the question. Cite the entire rule or tell me where to find it, and I'll answer it.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.
I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
Why are you not allowing me to resolve the power?
Proof that you are allowed to cast and resolve hammerhand twice resulting in the usage of page 2 multiple modifiers.
nosferatu1001 wrote:As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
The rules for wounds makes it clear. That you are arguing this only shows that you are not interested in any sort of progress, only winning a debate.
"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused..." page 14, BRB
You don't 'total up' things that are not cumulative. I understand that cumulative vs non-cumulative may be difficult for some to grasp but after repeating this concept several times I'd hoped you have a handle on it by now. Read the whole Wound section and it makes it clear they are treated in a cumulative nature.
PrinceRaven wrote: That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.
You use it twice and resolve it twice. If they are not cumulative, how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit? Remember any addition to force or quantity by adding more is treating it cumulatively.
There lies the assumption. You cannot have more than one if it's not cumulative. Non-cumulatively you can use it and resolve it all you want and the number will not change.
Hammerhand is not "in effect" on the unit, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength. Then I cast Hammerhand again, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength.
Blessings and maledictions are stated to last until the end of the following turn. As that is the case whether it is stated or not they are in some way in effect for that time. I do wish they would better define that part better but given what we have to work with it is the best way to describe a powers lingering effect.
Is it a Blessing? Does it have it's own unique way of being implamented? If so, why is it being used as a focal point for this discussion?
PrinceRaven wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You gain +1 strength on the model for each Hammerhand cast until it is at strength 10. Nice try though.
That is not stated as far as I know for this power nor has the proper wording to reflect this been shown.
nosferatu1001 wrote: As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.
And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.
By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.
So -1W is cumulative, but +1S isnt?
Nice try though..
First, I never stated modifiers are not cumulative. Stop with the Red Herring and tell me how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit.
Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power.
As you seem to attach no particular 'power in effect' or power being 'active' or anything like that to the indicated effects of the power itself without a statement directing you to do so let me ask you one question. How long does the cover save from Fire Shield last? It is stated separately from any 'while this power is in effect' wording and has no specified duration. Without being attached to any 'active' or 'in effect' power it will last the rest of the game.
Some association with the power being in effect on a target and the stated effects of said power or things start to break down.
PrinceRaven wrote:I, for one, do not have enough faith in the writers' abilities to say that any misleading they do is intentional.
The no stacking side has made a number of assumptions, including:
- Psychic powers are special rules
- Different powers stacking means multiple iterations of the same power don't rather than some powers are cumulative and some aren't
- Everything is inherently non-cumulative despite only the special rules section stating this to be the case
- Every other rule that would be affected by treating all rules as non-cumulative is exempt from this ruling
- The multiple modifiers rule only applies when the modifiers come from different sources
- In "Whilst the power is in effect" powers, "the power" does not refer to that manifestation of the power, but the power in and of itself (granted, those who insist that these powers definitely stack make the reversed assumption)
- Other powers that don't have this wording are still treated as if they do
I have not assumed any of these things. The BRB states when things are handled cumulatively either directly or indirectly. I simply find no permission to handle everything else cumulatively aside from when the book says to do so.
The stacking side has generally claimed an indirect cumulative nature to same powers by bypassing the the powers active status and moving straight from casting to modifiers. All blessings and maledictions are sustained for a duration and (specific powers aside) their effects are based on that power effecting the target for that duration.
PrinceRaven wrote:They can quote rules from the psychic powers section to support different rules stacking, I've yet to see one that support same powers not stacking.
As far as rules quotes, how's this?
"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."
"If the psychic test is pass, all models in the unit (including Independent Character) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase."
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
If the unit does not gain +2 strength for having both Hammerhands cast on it, both the resolving psychic powers and multiple modifiers rules are being broken.
I have clear permission here to resolve the second Hammerhand and apply the modifier, now until someone can cite me a single rule that provides denial I'm going to tell every Grey Knight player I meet that they can stack Hammerhand to their heart's content.
Asking for a quote to support a 'no permission' argument is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the others argument. It's true, it doesn't say you can't. That changes absolutely nothing regarding supposed permission to do so which is the part in contention.
nosferatu1001 wrote:Unfortunately, a statement that different powers stack says absolutely *nothing* about same powers. It is a logical fallacy - one commmited by the no stack side - to claim that this means that same powers do NOT stack.
Nothing is said about same power stacking. That is correct. Your fabled permission of 'use power skip to end effect' is sketchy at best. Use of a malediction or blessing causes it to become in some way active for a duration by their description and during that time its effects are applied. The stacking of that particular effect is what is being called into question and continually ignoring it by many of the stacking side does not lend credence to your arguments.
The power itself being applied to the target for a duration is itself an effect of a use of the power. No where does it say that is cumulative. The stacking side seems to disassociate the particular effects of a power from this for some reason which seems to me to leave a written rule outside of their idea of how the game mechanics work out in this area.
-----------------
Different arguments seem to have different hold-ups on both sides here so just to clarify where people are at as far as my stance goes.
When you successfully use a blessing/malediction according to the BRB it lasts for a duration unless otherwise noted. The power(not it's individual effects) lasting a length of time is, as far as I can tell, a state known as 'in effect'. Agreed?
The source of the stated effects of the power is the power being 'in effect' unless otherwise noted. Agreed?
The number of power effects as they are described is limited by the amount of that power 'in effect'. Agreed?
PrinceRaven wrote: Due to the way Waaagh! Banners are worded, it is impossible to gain their effects more than once:
"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 Strength"
A unit has 3 Waaagh! Banners, does the unit include a Waaagh! Banner? Yes, so it gets +1 Strength.
you must be quoting a different rule, because banners adjust weapon skill, not str
My mob has 3 banners with the rule:
"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"
"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"
"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"
4+1+1+1=7.
"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."
The math works,pg 2 grants it permission, it must be RAW.
I like this argument better than the armor save one. pg 2 says any +1 to your armor save would go: 3+ save +1 modifier = 4+ save. 3+1=4. As pg 2 is the only argument the pro stacking side has, it's quite telling how they ignore what pg 2 actually says here.
But when it comes to armor saves the pro stackers will start quoting rules from the armor save section, saying the rules dictate the math. Yet for psychic powers it's pg 2 first and ignore the rules, the math dictates the rules. the cognitive dissonance here is astounding and why I believe that argument to be totally wrong.
So if psychic powers can stack with no rules support, than by the same logic my waaagh banners can stack. Because all math in the game is inherently cumulative
Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction, it an un-typed psychic power that gives a unit +1 Strength for the duration of the assault phase.
Per page 2, characteristic modifiers are cumulative. You claim that because the source of these modifiers is multiple iterations of the same psychic power permission to be cumulative is denied. I ask you to prove that.
Sirlynchmob: Yes, I made a typo. You noticed it, good job.
That is still not how the rule works, the unit either includes a Waaagh! Banner or it does not.
PrinceRaven wrote: Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction,
I have no problem with it stacking then, thanks for clarifying that for me. As this is not a thread about Hammerhand I'm more or less speaking generally and my comments about maledictions and blessings stand.
Note to all: Sorry for the length of my above post BTW, I had a lot to respond to.
PrinceRaven wrote: Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction, it an un-typed psychic power that gives a unit +1 Strength for the duration of the assault phase.
Per page 2, characteristic modifiers are cumulative. You claim that because the source of these modifiers is multiple iterations of the same psychic power permission to be cumulative is denied. I ask you to prove that.
Sirlynchmob: Yes, I made a typo. You noticed it, good job.
That is still not how the rule works, the unit either includes a Waaagh! Banner or it does not.
It's the same argument being used to say enfeeble or hammerhand stacks
The unit is either enfeebled or it's not.
it either has hammerhand or it doesn't
If you apply the rules for enfeeble or hammerhand more than once, it is exactly the same as applying the rules for the waaagh banner more than once.
All models in the unit have +1 str All models in the mob have +1 ws
PrinceRaven wrote: Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction, it an un-typed psychic power that gives a unit +1 Strength for the duration of the assault phase.
Per page 2, characteristic modifiers are cumulative. You claim that because the source of these modifiers is multiple iterations of the same psychic power permission to be cumulative is denied. I ask you to prove that.
Sirlynchmob: Yes, I made a typo. You noticed it, good job.
That is still not how the rule works, the unit either includes a Waaagh! Banner or it does not.
It's the same argument being used to say enfeeble or hammerhand stacks
The unit is either enfeebled or it's not.
it either has hammerhand or it doesn't
If you apply the rules for enfeeble or hammerhand more than once, it is exactly the same as applying the rules for the waaagh banner more than once.
All models in the unit have +1 str All models in the mob have +1 ws
Not quite, the wording on Hammerhand, and the Ork banner are not the same.
Enfeeble states "whilst the power is in effect" the unit loses 1 Strength and Toughness, so there's a good argument for Enfeeble not being cumulative with itself as it is either in effect or it isn't.
Hammerhand is worded completely differently to Enfeeble, it isn't "in effect", it simply gives the unit +1 Strength.
PrinceRaven wrote: Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction,
I have no problem with it stacking then, thanks for clarifying that for me. As this is not a thread about Hammerhand I'm more or less speaking generally and my comments about maledictions and blessings stand.
Blessings and Maledictions, particularly those that have "whilst the power is in effect" wording (which is pretty much all of them) are too ambiguously worded for me to have a definite opinion on, which is why I've been focussing on Hammerhand. I play stuff like Enfeeble as whatever the local group generally plays it as.
Kambien - you realise the tenets allow you to cite rules? I have cited the rule. I do not have to provide it for you here.
Without the lasgun the unit could not make a shooting attack The lasgun caused the wound, through a series of dice rolls. Otherwise a DE unit shooting at a unit and destroying it deos not get the pain token, as it did not cause the unit to be destroyed, as they are one step further removed.
So no, not totally off base. Retract that assertion as it is proven false, again.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Kambien - you realise the tenets allow you to cite rules? I have cited the rule. I do not have to provide it for you here.
Without the lasgun the unit could not make a shooting attack The lasgun caused the wound, through a series of dice rolls. Otherwise a DE unit shooting at a unit and destroying it deos not get the pain token, as it did not cause the unit to be destroyed, as they are one step further removed.
So no, not totally off base. Retract that assertion as it is proven false, again.
you keep going on about this DE shooting unit and list no rules for your argument . Do you expect everyone to run around with copies of the DE rulebook ? Can you please cite the actual rules for a change ?
Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power. !
I can help here. It is being used because it is neither a malediction nor a blessing and lacks the "whilst this power is in effect" that basically all 6th Ed powers have. It is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on in relation to 6th Ed powers so are trying to muddy the water with a sloppily worded 5th Ed power and use this to imply that all powers stack as default. Essentially it is because they know they are wrong RaW and RaI but so desperately need to win the argument they are using an out of date power because it lacks the clarity of how it interacts with 6th Ed like the 6th Ed powers.
I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.
I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.
Why are you not allowing me to resolve the power?
Proof that you are allowed to cast and resolve hammerhand twice resulting in the usage of page 2 multiple modifiers.
Now, as nos asked, please retract your lie.
I see no proof in HJ's post. His example ignores RAW, where we are given permission in a permissive rule set for different Psychic Powers to be be cumulative, which occurs after we are told benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.
If you want to prove your case, prove that Hammerhand =/= Hammerhand. Prove that Different = Same.
As you cannot prove a negative, your case falls apart. I've accepted Nos's concession due to him never actually citing any rules to support his claims, I accept your concession due to the same.
Disregarding the rhetoric, FlingitNow is correct. Hammerhand doesn't have the ambiguous "whilst the power is in effect" wording which is a whole other argument in itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.
Please prove this using relevant rules quotations.
PrinceRaven wrote: Disregarding the rhetoric, FlingitNow is correct. Hammerhand doesn't have the ambiguous "whilst the power is in effect" wording which is a whole other argument in itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jeffersonian000 wrote: Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.
Please prove this using relevant rules quotations.
Already did, as seen earlier in this thread as well as in every version of this thread that has appeared previously. In this thread, you will see my post detailing the logical progression on determining cumulative versus non-cumulative modifiers as defined by RAW.
The one that says because there are no examples in the multiple modifiers section for multiple modifiers from the same source we can't use the rule then goes on to make the assertion that psychic powers are special rules?
Allow me to refute this:
- Not having an example does not mean we can't use a rule, we don't have Tyranid examples in the shooting section of the book, yet Tyranids can still use them.
- Psyker is a special rule, psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers. This is why they are listed under the "Psychic Powers" section in books, not the "Special Rules" section. In a similar vein, unit types are unit types, wargear are wargear, characteristics are characteristics, etc.
PrinceRaven wrote: So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?
That would be Hang Up #2: "Permission to resolve equals permission to apply modifiers equals modifiers are cumulative", a common fallacy.
Permission to resolve is not permission to be cumulative. An example is multiple castings of Enfeeble on a Chimera. Permission to resolve? Yes. Is it cumulative? No.
Look at pg. 25 of the Grey Knights codex. No language is present advising us that the +1 to Str from Hammerhand is cumulative with multiple castings, yet Might of Titan does contain language stating its +1 to Str is cumulative with Hammerhand's +1 to Str. This is an example on the same page of the same codex of the permission required for stacking. The interesting part is that this permission predates 6th edition, implying that in 5th, modifers didn't stack without specific permission. 6th edition has not provided general permission, either, yet does allow specific permission as seen in the 6th Ed Chaos Space Marine codex.
So, let me throw back on to you: where is your permission to allow Hammerhand to be cumulative?
SJ
Well written. Rules clearly state that only different blessings, maledictions and whatnot stack. Why is that simple rule ignored and loopholes are searched for?
I would immediately quit the game if my opponent tried to stack e.g. Protect.
PrinceRaven wrote: The one that says because there are no examples in the multiple modifiers section for multiple modifiers from the same source we can't use the rule then goes on to make the assertion that psychic powers are special rules?
Allow me to refute this:
- Not having an example does not mean we can't use a rule, we don't have Tyranid examples in the shooting section of the book, yet Tyranids can still use them.
- Psyker is a special rule, psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers. This is why they are listed under the "Psychic Powers" section in books, not the "Special Rules" section. In a similar vein, unit types are unit types, wargear are wargear, characteristics are characteristics, etc.
Pg. 2 does not contain language stating all modifiers are cumulative. My post pointed out that pg. 2 only covers how to apply different modifiers, not how to apply multiples of the same modifier. You need to cite a specific example in order to refute that statement.
As to psychic powers and special rules, every psychic power that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are in fact Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB. Not all psychic powers generate special rules, but all powers that do grant rules that change how the basic rules are applied will fall under Special Rules. Again, you need to cite language in the BRB that states otherwise in order to refute that statement.
Let me give you an example:
Smite generates no special rules, it is simply a Psychic Shooting Attack with a weapon profile. No rules are bent or broken.
Hammerhand grants a +1 to Str for the unit (a special rule as noted on pg. 32, which specially points out Strenght modifiers as Special Rules) as well as the ability to apply said bonus before multiplication (breaks the basic rules on pg. 2).
Hammerhand generates Special Rules, which per pg. 32 informs us that the bonus from Hammerhand is not cumulative. Please cite an actual rule that refutes this statement.
They really don't. I have not seen anything cited that disproves his examples.
where we are given permission in a permissive rule set for different Psychic Powers to be be cumulative
Correct, but this does not say that the same psychic power is not cumulative.
which occurs after we are told benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative.
This is the basis for your argument? This is 100% incorrect. I challenge you to find where it says that "benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative." because I can not find that anywhere in my BRB that says that Psychic powers are not cumulative.
Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.
There is no denial of permission, Cite it and prove me wrong. (You won't be able to because this restriction does not exist).
If you want to prove your case, prove that Hammerhand =/= Hammerhand. Prove that Different = Same.
Your false premise leads to this false conclusion.
As you cannot prove a negative, your case falls apart. I've accepted Nos's concession due to him never actually citing any rules to support his claims, I accept your concession due to the same.
SJ
You are the one with the false premise.
We have permission to cast hammerhand on a unit. That unit gets a +1 modifier.
We have permission once that first casting is resolved to cast Hammerhand again from a different psyker onto that same unit. once that second Hammerhand is resolved that unit gets a +1 Str. We look up what to do when we have multiple modifiers on page 2, and we see that 4+1+1= 6, just like regular math.
You are the one that needs to find a restriction, since you can not you must concede that these powers will stack because of the rules I have provided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FlingitNow wrote: They do however only state that different powers are cumulative...
Yes they state that different powers are cumulative. This does not mean that the same power is not cumulative.
Because P.2 tells us that Hammerhand is cumulative by virtue of saying that 4+1+1=6
Multiple modifiers allows stacking. Nothing restricts stacking to different powers only
They really don't. I have not seen anything cited that disproves his examples.
where we are given permission in a permissive rule set for different Psychic Powers to be be cumulative
Correct, but this does not say that the same psychic power is not cumulative.
which occurs after we are told benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative.
This is the basis for your argument? This is 100% incorrect. I challenge you to find where it says that "benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative." because I can not find that anywhere in my BRB that says that Psychic powers are not cumulative.
Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.
There is no denial of permission, Cite it and prove me wrong. (You won't be able to because this restriction does not exist).
If you want to prove your case, prove that Hammerhand =/= Hammerhand. Prove that Different = Same.
Your false premise leads to this false conclusion.
As you cannot prove a negative, your case falls apart. I've accepted Nos's concession due to him never actually citing any rules to support his claims, I accept your concession due to the same.
SJ
You are the one with the false premise.
We have permission to cast hammerhand on a unit. That unit gets a +1 modifier.
We have permission once that first casting is resolved to cast Hammerhand again from a different psyker onto that same unit. once that second Hammerhand is resolved that unit gets a +1 Str. We look up what to do when we have multiple modifiers on page 2, and we see that 4+1+1= 6, just like regular math.
You are the one that needs to find a restriction, since you can not you must concede that these powers will stack because of the rules I have provided.
Concession accepted. No citation from you to support your claim, just the continued denial of my argument based solely on your opinion alone.
Yes they state that different powers are cumulative. This does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. !
No RaW it doesn't you're correct that statement in itself does not state that the same power doesn't stack. That is true but the only rason to single out different powers EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about powers stacking means either the same power doesn't stack or you want the reader to believe the same powers don't stack. So again with the Design team deliberately trying to mislead us claim...
Because P.2 tells us that Hammerhand is cumulative by virtue of saying that 4+1+1=6
Multiple modifiers allows stacking. Nothing restricts stacking to different powers only
Multiple modifiers allows stacking of multiple modifiers. You have to prove you have permission to have multiple modifiers from the same psychic power. I know we have permission to cumulate different powers but where is your permission for the same power?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Concession accepted. No citation from you to support your claim, just the continued denial of my argument based solely on your opinion alone.
SJ
You are kidding right? I will give specific quotes since you say I do not have rules support, once you see these quotes you will be proven wrong.
The following quotes are from Page 67:
"Once a Psyker states which psychic power he is going to attempt to manifest, follow this sequence:"
"l. Expend Warp Charge Reduce the Psyker's Warp Charge. 2. Declare Target If the psychic power requires a target, choose it now. 3. Take Psychic Test The Psyker must now take a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails. If a double I or double 6 is rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately. 4. Deny the Witch If the Psychic test was passed and the target was an enemy, it now gets a chance to Deny the Witch and nullify the power. If the power is nullified, the attempt fails and nothing further happens. 5. Resolve Psychic Power Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the power was not nullified by ^ Deny the Witch roll, it is now resolved"
There is permission for a single psyker to cast Hammerhand on a unit.
There contains permission for a different Psyker to also cast Hammerhand on the same target unit. It has to be a different Psyker because of this restriction: "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn -even if the manifestation attempt is not successful"
Once we resolve the first hammerhand we can cast the second one, which also needs to be resolved.
Resolving a Psychic power is as such:
page 68 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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.
Hammerhand creates a modifier, if it is cast twice, which I have proven it can be cast twice on a single unit, then it creates multiple modifiers on a single unit. we look at page 2 and see that 4+1+1=6.
Yes they state that different powers are cumulative. This does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. !
No RaW it doesn't you're correct that statement in itself does not state that the same power doesn't stack. That is true but the only rason to single out different powers EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about powers stacking means either the same power doesn't stack or you want the reader to believe the same powers don't stack. So again with the Design team deliberately trying to mislead us claim...
The Design team was placing a reminder within the rules, nothing more.
Multiple modifiers allows stacking of multiple modifiers. You have to prove you have permission to have multiple modifiers from the same psychic power. I know we have permission to cumulate different powers but where is your permission for the same power?
As noted above. permission for the same power to be cast and resolved twice on the same unit.
The Design team was placing a reminder within the rules, nothing more.
It is a partial reminder that is intentionally misleading taken in context. Find another example anywhere in the rules where they do this and you'd have a point.
As noted above. permission for the same power to be cast and resolved twice on the same unit.
Permission to cast a power twice is not permission to resolve it cumulatively. Please quote that. Just as getting stealth from 2 different sources doesn't give you stealth x 2.
resolution of the power doesn't include permission to make it cumulative.
You can resolve the power by saying the unit now has x power affecting it. Whilst X power is in effect the unit has +1 to Y. The requirement for the power to be resolved isn't the modification of the stat, but the power being on the unit. This is evident in that many powers have no affect on statistics of units and do other things, like grant overwatch at full BS, or deny overwatch, or what not. The end effect, the resolution of the power is the power being on the unit, not the singular stat effect. So yes you have permission to have multiple hammerhands resolved on a unit, but no you do not have permission for them to be cumulative.
Further going past this lack of any RAW permission for them to be cumulative, you have the RAW that different powers are cumulative. When we see rules in the rulebook we assume they are in the rulebook because they give permission for that rule to take affect.
So we have permission for different powers, and none given for the same powers to stack in general.
Furthermore within the grey knights codex if we want to single out hammerhand, we have the power "might of the titans" which states that it will stack with the +1 strength for hammerhand. This shows RAI that even in 5th hammerhand probably did not stack with itself, as it had to be spelled out that a different power would actually stack with it. As this has not been faqed to change the wording it still stands as RAI in the current edition.
There is no general permission to then make the multiple castings of the same power cumulative. You are not breaking any rules by not letting them be cumulative as the rules on p.2 only tell you want to do for modifiers which are allowed to be cumulative.
As no one has been given permission for the power to be cumulative, within a permissive rules set its not cumulative.
No one has shown that there is permission under blessings/maledictions or psychic powers for the same power to be cumulative. Simply citing how you apply multiple modifers -WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO BE CUMULATIVE FROM THEIR SPECIFIC SOURCES- is not the basis for making something cumulative.
Furthermore as a more extreme statement from a strictly RAW standpoint under modifiers it states "certain pieces of Wargear or Special Rules may modify some models characteristics" psychic powers are neither of those, unless somehow they are special rules and everyone is wrong about that- which means you cannot make them cumulative as per the rules for special rules, but obviously that is not the RAW case[hey actually no where does it say psychic powers are not special rules so maybe they are if nowhere it says psychic powers are not cumulative..lol...] Potentially this means that you have to use the rules contained within the psychic power and the psychic power rules section themselves to apply your modifiers, which according to the rules under blessings/maledictions are allowed to be cumulative if they are different, and under the rules for specific powers it tells you how to modify the models statistics or abilities, which means you do not need the rules on p.2 to actually modify the stats, this would also RAW make powers that improve armor saves improve them, rather than worsen them as they would if you applied the modifiers RAW on p.2.
Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power. !
I can help here. It is being used because it is neither a malediction nor a blessing and lacks the "whilst this power is in effect" that basically all 6th Ed powers have. It is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on in relation to 6th Ed powers so are trying to muddy the water with a sloppily worded 5th Ed power and use this to imply that all powers stack as default. Essentially it is because they know they are wrong RaW and RaI but so desperately need to win the argument they are using an out of date power because it lacks the clarity of how it interacts with 6th Ed like the 6th Ed powers.
OK lets take a step away from Hammerhand for a moment.
C: Eldar, page 70.
Horrify is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 18". All models in the target unit suffer a -3 modifier to Leadership.
I have a Seer Council. There is a unit of Necron Warriors 12" away with an attached Cryptek. Warlock 1 attempts to cast Horrify. Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Warlock 1 reduces his Warp Charges from 1 to 0. Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council. Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Warlock must take a psychic test. As the Warlock is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 3, meaning against Ld 8, the Warlock passes (and nearly suffer PotW). Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 1 meaning they failed. Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. As above the Warriors suffer -3 to their Leadership.
Warlock 2 also attempts to cast Horrify. Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Warlock 2 reduces his Warp Charges from 1 to 0. Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council. Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Warlock must take a psychic test. As the Warlock is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 7, meaning against Ld 8, the Warlock passes. Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 5 meaning they failed. Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. As above the Warriors suffer -3 to their Leadership.
Now my question is why do you not let me resolve the second casting of Horrify, causing the Warriors to be at -6 Leadership. Please cite an actual rule that forbids me from resolving the power.
Now in the Shooting phase, the Farseer in the Council decides to cast Mind War (Focussed Witchfire). Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Farseer reduces his Warp Charges from 3 to 1. Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council, specifically the Cryptek. Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Farseer must take a psychic test. As the Farseer is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 2, meaning against Ld 10, the Farseer passes. The Farseer also suffers PotW but negates it with his last Warp Charge. More importantly, since I rolled less than 5, I get to target my choice of model (the Cryptek). Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 3 meaning they failed. Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. The Cryptek and Farseer both roll a D6 and add their Leadership. Since the Cryptek is at -6 (-3 and -3), and the Farseer is at Leadership 10, The Cryptek is reduced to BS 1, WS 1 and takes 1 to 9 wounds (depending on the rolls) with no armour or cover saves.
Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power. !
I can help here. It is being used because it is neither a malediction nor a blessing and lacks the "whilst this power is in effect" that basically all 6th Ed powers have. It is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on in relation to 6th Ed powers so are trying to muddy the water with a sloppily worded 5th Ed power and use this to imply that all powers stack as default. Essentially it is because they know they are wrong RaW and RaI but so desperately need to win the argument they are using an out of date power because it lacks the clarity of how it interacts with 6th Ed like the 6th Ed powers.
OK lets take a step away from Hammerhand for a moment.
C: Eldar, page 70.
Horrify is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 18". All models in the target unit suffer a -3 modifier to Leadership.
I have a Seer Council. There is a unit of Necron Warriors 12" away with an attached Cryptek.
Warlock 1 attempts to cast Horrify.
Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Warlock 1 reduces his Warp Charges from 1 to 0.
Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council.
Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Warlock must take a psychic test. As the Warlock is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 3, meaning against Ld 8, the Warlock passes (and nearly suffer PotW).
Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 1 meaning they failed.
Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. As above the Warriors suffer -3 to their Leadership.
Warlock 2 also attempts to cast Horrify.
Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Warlock 2 reduces his Warp Charges from 1 to 0.
Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council.
Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Warlock must take a psychic test. As the Warlock is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 7, meaning against Ld 8, the Warlock passes.
Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 5 meaning they failed.
Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. As above the Warriors suffer -3 to their Leadership.
Now my question is why do you not let me resolve the second casting of Horrify, causing the Warriors to be at -6 Leadership. Please cite an actual rule that forbids me from resolving the power.
Now in the Shooting phase, the Farseer in the Council decides to cast Mind War (Focussed Witchfire).
Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Farseer reduces his Warp Charges from 3 to 1.
Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council, specifically the Cryptek.
Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Farseer must take a psychic test. As the Farseer is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 2, meaning against Ld 10, the Farseer passes. The Farseer also suffers PotW but negates it with his last Warp Charge. More importantly, since I rolled less than 5, I get to target my choice of model (the Cryptek).
Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 3 meaning they failed.
Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. The Cryptek and Farseer both roll a D6 and add their Leadership. Since the Cryptek is at -6 (-3 and -3), and the Farseer is at Leadership 10, The Cryptek is reduced to BS 1, WS 1 and takes 1 to 9 wounds (depending on the rolls) with no armour or cover saves.
HJ, the reason why you only get a net of -3 to Ld from 2 or more castings of Horrify is because Horrify does not contain language informing us multiple casting are cumulative. As such, a unit can never be more Horrified than they were the first time they were Horrified. We know this because we are informed in the BRB that the effects of different Maledictions are cumulative, while the effects of multiple casting of the same Malediction have no such permission to be cumulative unless otherwise noted. That is the reason why after resolving the second power, the final result did not change from -3 to -6.
I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?
So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?
Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.
So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?
Why would we need one? No one has said you can't resolve the second casting. Just without permission you can't resolve it cumulatively. Show permission to resolve cumulatively and we'll all accept that. Page and paragraph is enough.
So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?
Why would we need one? No one has said you can't resolve the second casting. Just without permission you can't resolve it cumulatively. Show permission to resolve cumulatively and we'll all accept that. Page and paragraph is enough.
I have permission to resolve the first power resulting in a -3 Leadership. I have permission to resolve the second casting, resulting an another -3 Ld. -3 Ld + -3 Ld = -6 Ld.
I have permission to resolve the first power resulting in a -3 Leadership. I have permission to resolve the second casting, resulting an another -3 Ld. -3 Ld + -3 Ld = -6 Ld.
True but is that a different -3 to the one already on the unit from Horrify? If you resolve powers concurrently then no, if you resolve them cumulatively then yes. Without permission to resolve the power cumulatively you can't.
FlingitNow wrote: True but is that a different -3 to the one already on the unit from Horrify? If you resolve powers concurrently then no, if you resolve them cumulatively then yes. Without permission to resolve the power cumulatively you can't.
Page 67 gives permission to resolve the power in accordance to its instructions.
Page 2 gives the permission to be cumulative.
Is there anything that denies them from being cumulative, given I have just proven that we are given permission to resolve them cumulatively.
Page 2 talks about multiple different modifiers so we both know that isn't your proof for resolving powers cumulatively therefore it must be on page 67. But I just can't see where on page 67 it says resolve powers cumulatively with themselves? You made this claim please quote the part of page 67 that says a power is resolved cumulatively with itself or that multiple instances of the same power create different modifiers. If you can not post that concede and retract your statement.
FlingitNow wrote: Page 2 talks about multiple different modifiers so we both know that isn't your proof for resolving powers cumulatively therefore it must be on page 67. But I just can't see where on page 67 it says resolve powers cumulatively with themselves? You made this claim please quote the part of page 67 that says a power is resolved cumulatively with itself or that multiple instances of the same power create different modifiers. If you can not post that concede and retract your statement.
Where on page 2 does it say "different modifiers"?
You still have not shown a rule forbidding me from resolving the power according to instructions in its entries, which in the case of Horrify includes penalising the target unit with -3 Ld.
FlingitNow wrote: Page 2 talks about multiple different modifiers so we both know that isn't your proof for resolving powers cumulatively therefore it must be on page 67. But I just can't see where on page 67 it says resolve powers cumulatively with themselves? You made this claim please quote the part of page 67 that says a power is resolved cumulatively with itself or that multiple instances of the same power create different modifiers. If you can not post that concede and retract your statement.
Where on page 2 does it say "different modifiers"?
You still have not shown a rule forbidding me from resolving the power according to instructions in its entries, which in the case of Horrify includes penalising the target unit with -3 Ld.
HJ is correct. Until you come up with a rule forbidding the resolution of powers according to their instructions in their entry your points are moot.
If you can't cite anything that Forbids the resolution of the same power cast by a different Psyker then you must concede that powers can stack.
Happyjew wrote: I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?
So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?
Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.
Is wounding a Special Rule, or a basic rule? Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.
Happyjew wrote: I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?
So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?
Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.
Is wounding a Special Rule, or a basic rule? Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.
SJ
wounding is a basic rule. pg 44 first sentence.
If this is the sort of arguments you need to go to, to make your case, than I can safely say 100% raw psychic powers don't stack.
Happyjew wrote: I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?
So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?
Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.
Is wounding a Special Rule, or a basic rule? Is Vector Strike a Special Rule? Citations, please.
SJ
wounding is a basic rule. pg 44 first sentence.
If this is the sort of arguments you need to go to, to make your case, than I can safely say 100% raw psychic powers don't stack.
If wounding is a basic rule, then you use it wounding to disprove the non-stacking argument is fallacious. And you can safely say psychic powers don't stack, because you would be 100% correct per RAW.
Except there is no rules at all that say that psychic powers don't stack. There needs to be a rule stating this for them not to stack because we are given permission to cast and resolve two psychic powers on the same target unit.
It still looks to me like the whole non-stacking side bases their argument on the one line in the BRB about "different" powers stacking, assuming in the process that, as I read somewhere, "GW would not intentionally include such a misleading statement".
The assumption here is that GW is actually good at clear rules-writing. The size of this subforum proves that is not the case.
I firmly stand on the side of DeathReaper et al here.
Baktru wrote: It still looks to me like the whole non-stacking side bases their argument on the one line in the BRB about "different" powers stacking, assuming in the process that, as I read somewhere, "GW would not intentionally include such a misleading statement".
The assumption here is that GW is actually good at clear rules-writing. The size of this subforum proves that is not the case.
I firmly stand on the side of DeathReaper et al here.
It's three lines actually. One in Resolve Psychic Power, one in Blessings, and one in Maledictions. All of which explicitly call out different powers as cumulative. And then, as extra support, a line in the Chaos Space Marine codex Gift of Contagion power that explicitly makes it cumulative with itself. All of which would be irrelevant, and in fact out right misleading, if all psychic powers were cumulative (whether the same or different) by default.
PrinceRaven wrote: You say that like the rulebook isn't full of rules that are irrelevant and misleading.
I can't think of any off the top of my head. Do you have any examples of rules that are meaningless as printed in the book? Specifically ones that don't include language to make it obviously a reminder such as "Remember ..." or "This means ..."
So you want examples of reminders that aren't reminders?
There are plenty of examples of poorly written rules that never got an FAQ, simply being on YMDC for a while should show that. Intervening units and cover saves, Tank Hunter, Melta, etc. against Buildings, Battle Brothers and Transports, fortification cover saves, blinding tests...
Chrysis - yet the special rules section specifically states them cannot stack. So we know they can type that phrase, meaning assuming they meant for powers to not stack means they are being deliberately misleading.
Chrysis - yet the special rules section specifically states them cannot stack. So we know they can type that phrase, meaning assuming they meant for powers to not stack means they are being deliberately misleading.
We all know GW write clumsy rules and forget to tell us stuff they expect us to know (what an Infantry unit is, how Grav weapons work against mixed save units etc). So them missing it out is not intentionally misleading at all it is at best sloppy that they didn't put that reminder in like they did in the special rules section.
That is entirely different to specifically calling out a specific subset every single time they talk about Psychic powers stacking. Your inability to acknowledge that clear and obvious fact illustrates that you are arguing just for the sake of it as you know your position is untenable. This ludicrous post by you just further highlights that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: So you want examples of reminders that aren't reminders?
There are plenty of examples of poorly written rules that never got an FAQ, simply being on YMDC for a while should show that. Intervening units and cover saves, Tank Hunter, Melta, etc. against Buildings, Battle Brothers and Transports, fortification cover saves, blinding tests...
Just an example of a reminder that is intentionally misleading like this one. For instance if in the Ork Codex above every weapon profile it said "an Ork Loota fires this weapon with the following profile" it would strongly imply that no one other than a Loota could fire that weapon profile.
Literally every single time GW talk about powers stackng they call out different powers or place an exception within a power to stack with itself. Can you find any example where GW do something similar elsewhere? Any at all?
Ok, let's say that when they wrote the different powers are cumulative rule they fully intended every single power to be non-cumulative with themselves... So? How does that affect the rules? It means absolutely nothing when it comes to how the rules function.
PrinceRaven wrote: Ok, let's say that when they wrote the different powers are cumulative rule they fully intended every single power to be non-cumulative with themselves... So? How does that affect the rules? It means absolutely nothing when it comes to how the rules function.
So you don't care about the rules that GW designed? So why are you here discussing those rules?
