Normally the question if multiple castings of the same blessing/malediction are cumulative is highly debatable. There are threads with a lot of pages about this.
Hammerhand on the other side is not a blessing. Its cast at the start of the fight sub phase. Its not called a blessing nor is it cast at the start of the turn. It also wasnt faqed to be a blessing.
It states that if you succesfully cast it the unit gains +1 strength. SInce both the IC and the Unit have permission to cast hammerhand at the start of the fight sub phase they get +1 strength for each casting of hammerhand that was succesful. Page 3 tells us that basic math applies when handling multiple modifiers so 4+1+1=6.
Mywik is stating an opinion, not fact. We are specifically informed in the BRB that bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability on the same target are not cumulative without specific permission. Hammerhand does not have permission to be cumulative.
The "permission to cast = permission to resolve" argument is a false argument because "resolution" =/= "always cumulative".
The rules concerning this are found on pages 2, 32, and 68 of the BRB, and page 25 of Codex GK.
Back in 5th Ed, there was an FAQ that gave permission for all bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability to stack, unfortunately for Mywik that FAQ was replaced by a 6th Ed FAQ with no such language, while the BRB goes to great length to state cumulative requires specific permission. For an example of powers with specific permission to stack, look at the powers in the Chaos SM codex.
Also, there are over a half dozen locked threads on this subject, due to neither side of the argument being willing to budge until GW issues an FAQ addressing the problem. Common consensus among the more reasonable posters is to discuss it with your opponent or tournament organizer.
Mywik is stating an opinion, not fact. We are specifically informed in the BRB that bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability on the same target are not cumulative without specific permission. Hammerhand does not have permission to be cumulative.
The "permission to cast = permission to resolve" argument is a false argument because "resolution" =/= "always cumulative".
The rules concerning this are found on pages 2, 32, and 68 of the BRB, and page 25 of Codex GK.
Back in 5th Ed, there was an FAQ that gave permission for all bonuses and penalties from multiple uses of the same ability to stack, unfortunately for Mywik that FAQ was replaced by a 6th Ed FAQ with no such language, while the BRB goes to great length to state cumulative requires specific permission. For an example of powers with specific permission to stack, look at the powers in the Chaos SM codex.
Also, there are over a half dozen locked threads on this subject, due to neither side of the argument being willing to budge until GW issues an FAQ addressing the problem. Common consensus among the more reasonable posters is to discuss it with your opponent or tournament organizer.
SJ
Fair enough. So you can add hammerhand to the debates although its not a blessing. Maybe i was so sure about it since i play grey knights for a while and never had anyone debate casting multiple hammerhands at the table, Unlike enfeeble. So mark my post as a hiwpi answer.
The best thing is that if you allow multiple castings, you can potentially take GKs with Draigo, an =][= who knows Hammerhand and ally in 2x =][= from Codex:=][= who also know Hammerhand... cast all 4 and you get +4S.
If my opponent actually went to all that trouble, I would gladly let them do it. I play mobile Tau. You have to get INTO combat to use the bonuses to Strength
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh... and give one of the =][='s the Rad Grenades wargear. -1T to an enemy has a similar effect to +1S on your model. 4x Hammerhands + Rad grenades let you double out a toughness 5 model. If you have a weapon that boosts S by at least +2, (the sword maybe? def the hammer), you can double out a T6 critter. I'm 99% sure you test for doubling out against current T and not original T. I might be wrong on this though.
Actually were only informed that different are cumulative. There is no "unless", unlike jeffersonians oft repeated mischaracterisation of this.
You have permission to cast, and permission to resolve is granted unless you can show a restriction
Jeffersonian et al cannot show this restriction, ever, despite repeated requests To do so. The only conclusion being that this restriction is not present in the rule.
One use of Hammerhand turns a Daemonhammer into an S10 weapon with ID, if the Daemonhammer is being used by a S4 model. If you could even prove Hammerhand is intended to be cumulative with itself, how are you activating your Force Weapons? You can already ID a T8 model on a 2+ with a S10 Daemonhammer.
Now, if the entire exercise of stacking Hammerhand is to get a bunch of Death Cult Assassins to the point they can hit at S10 at Initiative, you have to ask, "are they GKDCA or =][= DCA?" Codex =][= Hammerhand is a blessing. Codex GK Hammerhand does not have language stating it is cumulative. Nemesis DreadKnights already hit at S10 at Initiative with their ID inflicting Doomfists.
Also, people forget that Might of Titan does stack with Hammerhand, and can give a S3 Inquisitor with Daemonhammer a S10 attack that IDs a T8 model (if the Inquisitor is a Psyker).
As to stacking -1 T penalties, an allied Inquisitor with Rad Grenades and Enfeeble attacked to a Dark Angel unit with a Rad launcher will cause a charged target to be at -3 T if they succeed at casting, shooting, and charging. The question is, do they have enough Warp Charges to slap on a Hammerhand or activate their Force Weapon?
theemporerprotectsnone wrote: oh boy, i didnt mean to start a back and forth, img etting ready for the ATC and was just curious lol
Best thing to do is email them about this question. Nothing that will be posted in this thread will have any bearing on how its played in the tournament. Im pretty sure that this is a case they have already covered in the past and that they will gladly tell you how they rule it in their tournament.
As stated Hammer hand is not a blessing so the rules for blessings do not apply. It doesn't require specific text allowing it to be cumulative with itself like blessings do. As per the rule book you simply follow the text of Hammer hand, always resolving it as stated in its own text.
Bausk wrote: As stated Hammer hand is not a blessing so the rules for blessings do not apply. It doesn't require specific text allowing it to be cumulative with itself like blessings do.
Blessings don't require specific text allowing it to be cumulative with itself, as they have general permission to be cast and resolved on a single unit.
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect, yet in 4 different places in the BRB we are told different sources are cumulative. Permission to cast =/= always cumulative.
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,
We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.
yet in 4 different places in the BRB we are told different sources are cumulative.
SJ
Different powers are cumulative does not = the same power is not cumulative.
Permission to cast =/= always cumulative.
But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect, yet in 4 different places in the BRB we are told different sources are cumulative. Permission to cast =/= always cumulative.
SJ
"failed logic"£, from someone claiming that a permission to do X is a restriction on Y occurring?
Multiple modifiers gives you the permission needed to multiply modify something. Absent you ever, ever, EVER findsing your mythical restriction that is all the permission that is needed for something that applies a modifier to accumulate.
No need to rehash old arguments which were comprehensively proven any further. 4+1+1 = 6, until and unless there is a *rule* *stating* otherwise, as opposed to your inference
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,
We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.
The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.
DeathReaper wrote: But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.
This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,
We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.
The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.
DeathReaper wrote: But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.
This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.
I cast hammerhand, and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength. My strength is now (x)+1
I cast hammerhand again (from a different source, say, an IC), and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength again. My strength is now ((x)+1)+1.
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,
We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.
The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.
DeathReaper wrote: But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.
This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.
I cast hammerhand, and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength. My strength is now (x)+1
I cast hammerhand again (from a different source, say, an IC), and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength again. My strength is now ((x)+1)+1.
show me where I have violated the rules
please clarify your use of the word resolve , you are currently not using it as per the definition. What criteria are you using to make the decision that the 2nd casting will stack with the first ?
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,
We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.
The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.
DeathReaper wrote: But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.
This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.
I cast hammerhand, and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength. My strength is now (x)+1
I cast hammerhand again (from a different source, say, an IC), and as I have permission to resolve it, I gain +1 strength again. My strength is now ((x)+1)+1.
show me where I have violated the rules
please clarify your use of the word resolve , you are currently not using it as per the definition. What criteria are you using to make the decision that the 2nd casting will stack with the first ?
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed
Don't have a rulebook on me. Sorry. Will do when I get home.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed
Don't have a rulebook on me. Sorry. Will do when I get home.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve the power, and resolving the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
please look up the definition of resolve. It will show you how your argument is flawed
Don't have a rulebook on me. Sorry. Will do when I get home.
You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to" Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?
The permission is implied in the "solution," I.E. adding +1. You "settle or find the solution to" a casting of Hammerhand by adding +1 to your current Strength, to a maximum of 10, with no restrictions.
Edit: Hell, here's my post with the definition of resolve instead of the word:
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve 'settle or find a solution to' the power, and resolving 'settling or finding the solution to' the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?
The permission is implied in the "solution," I.E. adding +1. You "settle or find the solution to" a casting of Hammerhand by adding +1 to your current Strength, to a maximum of 10, with no restrictions.
Edit: Hell, here's my post with the definition of resolve instead of the word:
There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve 'settle or find a solution to' the power, and resolving 'settling or finding the solution to' the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.
You cast enfeeble on a vehicle. Enfeeble reduces the targets T by 1 and makes it as if the model was in difficult terrain. The model suffers no negative to toughness . Did the power resolve ?
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
The power states it is applicable - there's your permission to add +1 to your current strength.
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
The power states it is applicable - there's your permission to add +1 to your current strength.
Now you have to revoke that permission.
If the power stated it was applicable these threads wouldn't exists.
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
Applicable? Are we not told to resolve the power?
So we have permission to apply a +1 modifier.
Where's the restriction there?
Is there a restriction for 2 Psykers casting the same power?
There are a whole host of permissions, and not a single restriction.
What restriction is there? Or what lack of permission?
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
The power states it is applicable - there's your permission to add +1 to your current strength.
Now you have to revoke that permission.
If the power stated it was applicable these threads wouldn't exists.
Not sure , i don't have access to the entire power description just the bits people post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: Applicable? Are we not told to resolve the power?
So we have permission to apply a +1 modifier.
Where's the restriction there?
Is there a restriction for 2 Psykers casting the same power?
There are a whole host of permissions, and not a single restriction.
What restriction is there? Or what lack of permission?
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
Not sure , i don't have access to the entire power description just the bits people post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grendel083 wrote: Applicable? Are we not told to resolve the power?
So we have permission to apply a +1 modifier.
Where's the restriction there?
Is there a restriction for 2 Psykers casting the same power?
There are a whole host of permissions, and not a single restriction.
What restriction is there? Or what lack of permission?
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
Enfeeble resolves, the vehicle loses d3 toughness (which does not affect it in the slightest) but is now in difficult terrain (which most certainly does).
kambien wrote: Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.
So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.
All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?
kambien wrote: Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.
So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.
All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?
Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.
you guys are arguing senselessly at this point like i said i checked with the tournament organizer and the way that that are running it at a very large and well known tournament is that it stacks coming from multiple sources, whether you agree with it or not thats how it is being played
kambien wrote: Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.
So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.
All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?
Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.
Yes, you are - if you have not reached the maximum strength value of 10, then you can stack them all you want, because there is no restriction preventing the resolution of the power.
kambien wrote: Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.
So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.
All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?
Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.
So no restriction then? None at all?
And it uses a stacking symbol. One that is by it's very nature cumulative (+).
Basic addition, basic maths, is not stacking/cumulative?
All the permissions are there:
Permission to resolve,
Permission to have more than one (multiple) modifiers,
A modifier that is cumulative (addition)
Yes there is permission.
No there isn't a single restriction.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, you are - if you have not reached the maximum strength value of 10, then you can stack them all you want, because there is no restriction preventing the resolution of the power.
You at no time have found the permission to stack the same power to the strength score of 10. Its a permissive rule set . You need permission to do such things.
kambien wrote: Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?
That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.
So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.
All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?
Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.
So no restriction then? None at all?
And it uses a stacking symbol. One that is by it's very nature cumulative (+).
Basic addition, basic maths, is not stacking/cumulative?
All the permissions are there:
Permission to resolve,
Permission to have more than one (multiple) modifiers,
A modifier that is cumulative (addition)
Yes there is permission.
No there isn't a single restriction.
are you saying permissive rule set doesn't restrict permissions ? You still lack permission to stack the same power . At no point has anything you shown dispute that
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, you are - if you have not reached the maximum strength value of 10, then you can stack them all you want, because there is no restriction preventing the resolution of the power.
You at no time have found the permission to stack the same power to the strength score of 10. Its a permissive rule set . You need permission to do such things.
The power itself uses a + sign, indicating mathematical accumulation. There is no indication that we are to take this symbol (the +) as anything other than strict mathematical addition. That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.
The only restriction is that there is a maximum strength value of 10.
kambien wrote: are you saying permissive rule set doesn't restrict permissions ? You still lack permission to stack the same power . At no point has anything you shown dispute that
I'm not sure you fully understand the nature of a permissive ruleset.
You can't do anything without permission.
Once permission is granted, you need a restriction to remove said permission.
Permission is granted.
You can resolve the power,
The same power can be cast from different sources,
The power can apply a modifier,
More than one modifier can be applied,
A stacking/cumulative symbol is used in the description of the Modifer being used.
Go through the process, at every step there is something granting permission.
Show where it isn't.
Or show a restriction.
kambien wrote: you still lack the rules to use the 2nd +1 in your equation.
Prove it.
I've shown where all the permissions are granted.
Edit: just to simplify things, so we can focus on the correct issue, you agree that there is nothing restricting the stacking of this power? You're just arguing that there's nothing allowing it, correct?
Unit1126PLL wrote: That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.
I disagree , you get to do it once
Why do you disagree? You can't just 'disagree' with mathematical truth and then not provide an explanation.
because "+" is not a infinity symbol
It does not need to be - it's just an operator. However, it can be used infinite times - there is no limit of the number of operations permitted in an equation, and adding additional hammerhands just adds additional operations.
kambien wrote: you have never proved you are allowed to stack the same power twice in your equation
"+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?
And the rule in question uses this symbol, correct?
And we're told to resolve the power?
And that multiple castings of the same power is allowed from separate Psykers?
Let's get these questions out if the way first. Your answer is yes to all of them?
kambien wrote: you have never proved you are allowed to stack the same power twice in your equation
"+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?
And the rule in question uses this symbol, correct?
And we're told to resolve the power?
And that multiple castings of the same power is allowed from separate Psykers?
Let's get these questions out if the way first. Your answer is yes to all of them?
kambien wrote: you have never proved you are allowed to stack the same power twice in your equation
"+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?
And the rule in question uses this symbol, correct?
And we're told to resolve the power?
And that multiple castings of the same power is allowed from separate Psykers?
Let's get these questions out if the way first. Your answer is yes to all of them?
Yep
Great.
And your happy with Stacking and cumulative being pretty much the same thing?
Now, are you arguing that addition is not cumulative?
Or
That the game doesn't say that something that is cumulative is cumulative?
(In other words, does the game need to tell you that a duck is a duck? Personally if the game says duck, I'm happy that it it's talking about a duck. No need to tell me that a duck is in fact a duck, the double explanation isn't needed).
grendel083 wrote: "+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?
Believe the mathematical symbol for addiction is a small pile of white powder.
Any debate should be centered around the restriction of multiple applications of the same blessing power stacking (see psychic section of the brb) and whether Hammer Hand should be considered a blessing. After all multiple applications of bolters all stack up in the wound pool
grendel083 wrote: And your happy with Stacking and cumulative being pretty much the same thing?
They are close
grendel083 wrote: Now, are you arguing that addition is not cumulative?
Nope
grendel083 wrote: That the game doesn't say that something that is cumulative is cumulative?
(In other words, does the game need to tell you that a duck is a duck? Personally if the game says duck, I'm happy that it it's talking about a duck. No need to tell me that a duck is in fact a duck, the double explanation isn't needed).
So the game says duck and you crouch , then the game says duck again , do you stand back up and duck again ( permission wasn't given to stand though ) or do you look foul ?
kambien wrote: So the game says duck and you crouch , then the game says duck again , do you stand back up and duck again ( permission wasn't given to stand though ) or do you look foul ?
Ha! Ok, Duck wasn't the best example.
How about "chair". There's no game defined definition of a chair.
If the rule refers to a chair, do you need a further rule stating that a chair is a chair?
Or are you happy enough with what they're referring to?
nosferatu1001 wrote: So addition is cumulative?
And you are told to add twice?
Yet you are saying you are not allowed to add twice?
not quite , are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?
You said yourself the same power can be resolved more than once by different Psykers.
They both giving +1
And addition is cumulative.
There's even a rule called Multiple Modifiers.
grendel083 wrote: We're told to resolve. That means applying a +1 modifier. So that's what we do. It's as simple as that.
is wrong and has been pointed out multiple times
resolve is not blanket permission to apply the effects. you can resolve and have no effects applied. that entire premise is wrong
grendel083 wrote: Can you apply more than one modifier? Yes, see the rule "multiple modifiers"
No the reasoning is wrong, you can apply more then one modifier because you are given permissions to do so from different sources. Then you use pg2 on how to apply them. The same source is never mentioned as being cumulative
grendel083 wrote: Is +1 cumulative, can it be added to another number? Yes it can.
the adding of modifiers has never been in question.
grendel083 wrote: We're told to resolve. That means applying a +1 modifier. So that's what we do. It's as simple as that.
is wrong and has been pointed out multiple times
resolve is not blanket permission to apply the effects. you can resolve and have no effects applied. that entire premise is wrong
Then how to we apply the first modifier, if we're only told to resolve it, and that somehow doesn't involve applying the effects?
How do we apply the effects of any power or special rule? If they only say resolve?
How do we resolve the power without apply the effects?
I think someone needs to quote the exact rule for Hammerhand for kambien. iirc it's wording is such that you must immediately add +1 strength to the characteristic of the effected models. You can't finish casting hammerhand without doing what the power says, and the power tells you to add +1 strength to the model's characteristic. It doesn't say "while under the effects of hammerhand models get +1 strength". It simply gives the characteristic modifier and finishes.
kambien wrote: are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?
Are you talking about the modifier "1"? Because if your objection is that you can't use a "+1" modifier two times, then what happens when I use Hammerhand and Iron Arm (+1) on the same model? A Biomancy Librarian with an attached Inquisitor would be S+1+1 at that point.
Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again. But if we must, I don't really want to go through all 3 pages, so could someone tell me what bogus argument is the non-stacking side is using this time?
Multiple modifiers doesn't apply to modifiers that are multiple?
You can't have two Hammerhands "in effect" on the same unit despite it not using the in effect wording at all?
You can resolve the power according to its entry without actually doing the things it tells you to do in the entry?
Everything* is inherently non-cumulative despite what Multiple Modifiers says?
* Everything not including hits, wounds, Vector Strikes, and anything else you use to disprove their argument
PrinceRaven wrote: Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again.
It's about that time, we've had a couple of "void shields and blasts" which threw the schedule.
Our weekly "does X get a cover save behind an Aegis" is due soon.
so could someone tell me what bogus argument is the non-stacking side is using this time?
Theres a lack of permission somewhere. Not sure where.
You can resolve a power, but that doesn't mean you can apply the effects, except for the first one magically, but we don't know why.
jeffersonian000 wrote: And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,
We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.
The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.
Incorrect, we already have permission to cast Hammerhand, or indeed any blessing, on a single unit multiple times from different psykers.
Now you need to find the restriction that disallows this.
DeathReaper wrote: But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.
This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.
Permission is given by the psychic rules telling us we are allowed to cast and resolve the power. In hammerhand's case resolving the power results in adding a +1 strength to the unit.
We are also allowed to cast and resolve Hammerhand again on that same target unit, and that is what brings us to page 2 as we now have multiple +1's to the unit's strength.
PrinceRaven wrote: Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again.
It's about that time, we've had a couple of "void shields and blasts" which threw the schedule.
Our weekly "does X get a cover save behind an Aegis" is due soon.
We interrupt this thread to bring you a non-related question.
If I have a Grot 3" behind an ADL does it get a cover save? Some people at my store said you need to be within 2" but couldn't find anything about that.
PrinceRaven wrote: Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again.
It's about that time, we've had a couple of "void shields and blasts" which threw the schedule.
Our weekly "does X get a cover save behind an Aegis" is due soon.
We interrupt this thread to bring you a non-related question.
If I have a Grot 3" behind an ADL does it get a cover save? Some people at my store said you need to be within 2" but couldn't find anything about that.
We now return to the debate already in progress.
Just use a Warhammer Fantasy Grot that's standing on a crate.
It's not MFA, it says Grot on the tab mister honest!
kambien wrote: are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?
Are you talking about the modifier "1"? Because if your objection is that you can't use a "+1" modifier two times, then what happens when I use Hammerhand and Iron Arm (+1) on the same model? A Biomancy Librarian with an attached Inquisitor would be S+1+1 at that point.
Both an excellent and a horrible example. Excellent, because the BRB tells us the Bonuses from Iron Arm and Hammerhand are cumulative, which supports the Non-Stacking side of the argument. Horrible, because its a bad example to cite if you are attempting to support the Stacking side of the argument.
kambien wrote: are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?
Are you talking about the modifier "1"? Because if your objection is that you can't use a "+1" modifier two times, then what happens when I use Hammerhand and Iron Arm (+1) on the same model? A Biomancy Librarian with an attached Inquisitor would be S+1+1 at that point.
Both an excellent and a horrible example. Excellent, because the BRB tells us the Bonuses from Iron Arm and Hammerhand are cumulative, which supports the Non-Stacking side of the argument. Horrible, because its a bad example to cite if you are attempting to support the Stacking side of the argument.
SJ
Functionally it reminds us. It does nothing to support e inn stack side. Nothing at all.
Find a single restriction yet? Or a reason why 4+1+1 doesn't equal 6?
Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.
SJ
I see we are back to the "Modifiers are special rules" argument again. Which means a +1 from HH, and a +1 from IA would not stack because models cannot benefit from the same special rule (+1) multiple times.
Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.
SJ
And it states same sources aren't?
Im sure you can provide a page number for that quote
Bolded and underlined, for those unable to find the info in my wall of text.
SJ
Strange, I've checked those pages several times, and not once does it say same sources are NOT cumulative.
Could you please quote the line?
Same here. I've searched and searched, and not a single restriction exists there. Or is this somehow the claim that psychic powers are special rules , despite the fact they're not, and this is the sme claim you've been corrected on before?
As has been quoted in every thread on this subject that has popped up:
BRBpg. 68, Resolve Psychic Powers, last sentence:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
BRBpg. 68, Blessings, last sentence:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative ..."
BRBpg. 68, Maledictions, last sentences:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different Maledictions are always cumulative ..."
And as a counter point, BRBpg. 32, A Compendium of Special Rules, last paragraph:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefits of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Same language used in all four examples.
As to the Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules argument that keeps popping up, BRBpg. 32, What Special Rules do I Have, 2nd paragraph:
"Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers ..."
BRBpg. 41, Psyker:
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Of course, you will now argue "Different = Same", "Permission to Cast = Always Cumulative", and my favorite, "It doesn't say I can't in a permissive rule set, therefore I can". Although this new tactic of "all +1's are the same, therefore all +1's are not cumulative", is the best Strawman I've seen from the Stackers to date. Good show!
As to the Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules argument that keeps popping up, BRBpg. 32, What Special Rules do I Have, 2nd paragraph:
"Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers ..."
BRBpg. 41, Psyker:
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Endurance gives FNP, Relentless, and IWND, which are all special rules; these are the sorts of things to which BRB32 refers.
"+1 Str" is definitely NOT a special rule. For example, I do not gain the special rule "+1A" when I charge, since that special rule doesn't exist.
As to the Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules argument that keeps popping up, BRBpg. 32, What Special Rules do I Have, 2nd paragraph:
"Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers ..."
BRBpg. 41, Psyker:
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Endurance gives FNP, Relentless, and IWND, which are all special rules; these are the sorts of things to which BRB32 refers.
"+1 Str" is definitely NOT a special rule. For example, I do not gain the special rule "+1A" when I charge, since that special rule doesn't exist.
BRBpg. 32, 2nd paragraph, 1st 2 sentences:
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength."
As to the Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules argument that keeps popping up, BRBpg. 32, What Special Rules do I Have, 2nd paragraph:
"Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers ..."
BRBpg. 41, Psyker:
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Endurance gives FNP, Relentless, and IWND, which are all special rules; these are the sorts of things to which BRB32 refers.
"+1 Str" is definitely NOT a special rule. For example, I do not gain the special rule "+1A" when I charge, since that special rule doesn't exist.
BRBpg. 32, 2nd paragraph, 1st 2 sentences:
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength."
SJ
It's not explicitly mentioned but it's referring to Furious Charge right there.
I know that because Furious Charge is a special rule that grants a model a boost to its strength.
+1S is not a special rule granting a boost to a model's strength. +1S is a boost to a model's strength.
As to the Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules argument that keeps popping up, BRBpg. 32, What Special Rules do I Have, 2nd paragraph:
"Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers ..."
BRBpg. 41, Psyker:
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Endurance gives FNP, Relentless, and IWND, which are all special rules; these are the sorts of things to which BRB32 refers.
"+1 Str" is definitely NOT a special rule. For example, I do not gain the special rule "+1A" when I charge, since that special rule doesn't exist.
BRBpg. 32, 2nd paragraph, 1st 2 sentences:
"Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength."
SJ
Stating that a special rule could have a certain effect is not equivalent to saying that all of the effects are caused by a special rule.
jeffersonian000 wrote: As has been quoted in every thread on this subject that has popped up:
BRBpg. 68, Resolve Psychic Powers, last sentence:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Does not supply denial.
BRBpg. 68, Blessings, last sentence:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative ..."
BRBpg. 68, Maledictions, last sentences:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different Maledictions are always cumulative ..."
And as a counter point, BRBpg. 32, A Compendium of Special Rules, last paragraph:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefits of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Hammerhand is not a Malediction, Blessing, or Special Rule.
As to the Psychic Powers =/= Special Rules argument that keeps popping up, BRBpg. 32, What Special Rules do I Have, 2nd paragraph:
"Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers ..."
You have proved the some effects of some powers have special rules, you have not proved that the effect of Hammerhand is one of them.
BRBpg. 41, Psyker:
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Yes, Psyker is indeed a Special Rule, as it is found in the Special Rule segment of the rulebook and various codices.
Hammherhand is a psychic power, which is why it is found in the psychic powers part of the Codex, and not the Special Rules part of the Codex.
- It is the assault phase, my psyker has a warp charge available and has not used used Hammerhand this turn, so I have permission to manifest Hammerhand.
- I have permission to follow the usual steps for manifesting a psychic power in pages 67=68.
- I have permission to resolve the power according to instructions in its entry.
- The Hammerhand entry instructs me to apply +1 Strength to the unit, so I do.
- The unit already has had Hammerhand cast on it, so I have 2 +1 Strength modifiers, following the rules for multiple modifiers, Each model's current strength is now +2.
His point, if I follow, is psykers powers are an extension of the Psyker special rule by which the powera themselves are special rules by that extension. Which I understand as they are hardly a standard rule like movement, +1A for charging and alike.
Bausk wrote: His point, if I follow, is psykers powers are an extension of the Psyker special rule by which the powera themselves are special rules by that extension. Which I understand as they are hardly a standard rule like movement, +1A for charging and alike.
In that case, you could never receive two psychic powers ever, in the sense that if you had Prescience cast on yourself, then the opponent could not Doom/Crush/Enfeeble/whathaveyou you.
I think, since a unit can be both Enfeebled and Prescienced, this interpretation is flawed.
So again, Jeffersonian: permission was granted for the resolution of two +1, as this is a multiple modifier. Psychic powers are not themselves special rules, as proven. Plus one strength is not a special rule granting a bonus to strength, it is a bonus to strength.
So, to summarise your position: false logic, misleading statements and straw man arguments based on false quotations. Nice one! A trifecta of poor argumentation.
Bausk wrote: His point, if I follow, is psykers powers are an extension of the Psyker special rule by which the powera themselves are special rules by that extension. Which I understand as they are hardly a standard rule like movement, +1A for charging and alike.
To which I respond: if they are special rules why have they never been in the special rules section of any rulebook or Codex, nor ever called a special rule in any rules source?
If something doesn't look like a duck or quack like a duck it's probably not a duck.
Bausk wrote: His point, if I follow, is psykers powers are an extension of the Psyker special rule by which the powera themselves are special rules by that extension. Which I understand as they are hardly a standard rule like movement, +1A for charging and alike.
In that case, you could never receive two psychic powers ever, in the sense that if you had Prescience cast on yourself, then the opponent could not Doom/Crush/Enfeeble/whathaveyou you.
I think, since a unit can be both Enfeebled and Prescienced, this interpretation is flawed.
Universal special rules are not the only special rules in the game, which is your reading of my statement. Powers would be a specific set of special rules granted by a USR. Just as the Special rules Champion of Chaos and power from pain grant USRs but are not a USR itself (similar premise but reversed).
By your thought process there are no special rules outside of the usr section, which is not the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Pretty much the same response for Princeraven. Given the power section is unique to psykers i fail to see how they could be considered standard rules like movement or terrain.
There are lots of other special rules. For instance, the Mawloc has the Burrow, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed) and Terror from the Deep special rules. How do I know these are special rules?
Because when I go to my handy dandy Codex I can see:
"SPECIAL RULES:
- Burrow
- Deep Strike
- Fearless
- Hit & Run
- Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
- Terror From the Deep"
Point being powers are rules of a special rule. Just as much as the rules granted by the tyranid unique special rules. Which makes the general permission for multiple powers in to be stacked/cumulative make sense as well as the specific allowance for only different blessings and maledictions (unlesss stated in its specific power text) to be cumulative. Because we can follow that line of thought that all powers are a special rule under the psyker usr but are given particular permission to use multiples of some. Well that cleared things up, thanks princeraven.
Bausk wrote: His point, if I follow, is psykers powers are an extension of the Psyker special rule by which the powera themselves are special rules by that extension. Which I understand as they are hardly a standard rule like movement, +1A for charging and alike.
In that case, you could never receive two psychic powers ever, in the sense that if you had Prescience cast on yourself, then the opponent could not Doom/Crush/Enfeeble/whathaveyou you.
I think, since a unit can be both Enfeebled and Prescienced, this interpretation is flawed.
Incorrect. Enfeeble and Prescience are different, and their effects are cumulative per the BRB. Hammerhand and Hammerhand are the same, and are not cumulative per the BRB.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The +1 to Strength from Iron Arm, Hammerhand, and Might of Titan are cumulative per the BRB due to each ability being different.
The +1 to Strength from three castings of Hammerhand will only net a single +1 bonus per the BRB due to Hammerhand bring the same as Hammerhand.
SJ
except hammer hand is cumulative because gw didnt update it to correspond with 6th edition and there for stackble in tournaments so who cares any more
jeffersonian000 wrote: The +1 to Strength from Iron Arm, Hammerhand, and Might of Titan are cumulative per the BRB due to each ability being different.
The +1 to Strength from three castings of Hammerhand will only net a single +1 bonus per the BRB due to Hammerhand bring the same as Hammerhand.
SJ
When you say "per the brb", yet the brb has proven the exact opposite - something you are well aware of - you are breaking the tenets if this forum
Mark your posts as hywpi, as they bear no relation, whatsoever, to any actual rules.
jeffersonian000 wrote: The +1 to Strength from Iron Arm, Hammerhand, and Might of Titan are cumulative per the BRB due to each ability being different.
The +1 to Strength from three castings of Hammerhand will only net a single +1 bonus per the BRB due to Hammerhand bring the same as Hammerhand.
SJ
except hammer hand is cumulative because gw didnt update it to correspond with 6th edition and there for stackble in tournaments so who cares any more
jeffersonian000 wrote: The +1 to Strength from Iron Arm, Hammerhand, and Might of Titan are cumulative per the BRB due to each ability being different.
The +1 to Strength from three castings of Hammerhand will only net a single +1 bonus per the BRB due to Hammerhand bring the same as Hammerhand.
SJ
except hammer hand is cumulative because gw didnt update it to correspond with 6th edition and there for stackble in tournaments so who cares any more
jeffersonian000 wrote: The +1 to Strength from Iron Arm, Hammerhand, and Might of Titan are cumulative per the BRB due to each ability being different.
The +1 to Strength from three castings of Hammerhand will only net a single +1 bonus per the BRB due to Hammerhand bring the same as Hammerhand.
SJ
except hammer hand is cumulative because gw didnt update it to correspond with 6th edition and there for stackble in tournaments so who cares any more
Well, one tournament at least. Others may differ.
What occurs at a tournament is up to the TO, and in no way effects how the game actually plays.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Hammerhand and Hammerhand are the same, and are not cumulative per the BRB.
Still no rule quote that says that?
Already quoted, in a previous post in this very thread.
No, you posted a quote saying different powers are cumulative.
You have never posted any quote that states same powers aren't cumulative. Nor has anyone else.
There's a good reson for that (the rule doesn't exist).
jeffersonian000 wrote: Hammerhand and Hammerhand are the same, and are not cumulative per the BRB.
Still no rule quote that says that?
Already quoted, in a previous post in this very thread.
No, you posted a quote saying different powers are cumulative.
You have never posted any quote that states same powers aren't cumulative. Nor has anyone else.
There's a good reson for that (the rule doesn't exist).
Permissive rule set. You have to prove same is cumulative when the rules as written state different is cumulative. Proof is on you to show that multiple use of the same ability stack when the BRB gives permission for different abilities to stack. I quoted where permission has not only been given for different to be cumulative, but an actual restriction is given on bonuses or penalties from being cumulative if from multiple uses of the same ability.
This means that YOU have to prove "Same is cumulative"; I don't.
I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.
according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.
Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.
Do you have persmission to cast a power? Yes.
Do you have persmission to cast the same power twice from different sources? Yes.
Do you have persmission to resolve a power? Yes.
Given that permission is there a restriciton on resolving more than one power on a given model/unit? No.
Does the power state it applies a +1 stat modifier? Yes.
Is "+" a game defined term? No, so the actual meaning of the symbol must be used instead.
Is "+" the mathematical sysmbol for addition? Yes.
Is "+" by it's very nature cumulative? Yes.
Just to double check, the power says to apply a naturally cumulative modifier? Again, Yes.
Do you have persmission to apply more than one modifier to a model/unit? Yes.
Your turn. You made a statement. As per the tennants of this forum, you need to back that statement up with rules.
You said the rule exists that states same powers are NOT cumulative. Quote it.
PrinceRaven wrote: according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.
Since we're talking about Hammerhand, I figured it might be helpful if the power was quoted.
"This power is used in the assault phase (in either player's turn) after assault moves have been completed, but before any blows are struck. If the psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 strength until the end of the assault phase. Note this strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for nemesis daemon hammers and so forth."
When you cast this power... and resolve it (do what it says as the BRB gives you permission to do so)... then what is restricting you from casting it again and resolving (doing what it says) again?
jeffersonian000 wrote: Hammerhand and Hammerhand are the same, and are not cumulative per the BRB.
Still no rule quote that says that?
Already quoted, in a previous post in this very thread.
No, you posted a quote saying different powers are cumulative.
You have never posted any quote that states same powers aren't cumulative. Nor has anyone else.
There's a good reson for that (the rule doesn't exist).
Permissive rule set. You have to prove same is cumulative when the rules as written state different is cumulative. Proof is on you to show that multiple use of the same ability stack when the BRB gives permission for different abilities to stack. I quoted where permission has not only been given for different to be cumulative, but an actual restriction is given on bonuses or penalties from being cumulative if from multiple uses of the same ability.
This means that YOU have to prove "Same is cumulative"; I don't.
SJ
Bolded your lie.
Special rules do not dtack. Hammerhand isn't a special rule. Neither is "+1S". + is an inherently cumulative, by definition , operator. We are told that multiple modifiers are cumulative, and we Re given multiple modifiers when casting hammerhand twice.
You are as ever breaking the tenets, so please refrain from posting until up you can comply
PrinceRaven wrote: I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.
according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.
Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.
Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.
Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.
PrinceRaven wrote: I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.
according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.
Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.
Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.
So there is an actual rule saying only one Hammerhand can be active on a unit at anyone tiime?
Quote it.
Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.
No, you expressed an opinion without any rules support. Again.
PrinceRaven wrote: I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.
according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.
Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.
Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.
So there is an actual rule saying only one Hammerhand can be active on a unit at anyone tiime?
Quote it.
Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.
No, you expressed an opinion without any rules support. Again.
It's that posters one constant. Well the other being misrepresenting any actual rules quoted and pretending they're saying something entirely other, such as pretending "special rules" means the same thing as "ability"
jeffersonian000 wrote: Hammerhand and Hammerhand are the same, and are not cumulative per the BRB.
Still no rule quote that says that?
Already quoted, in a previous post in this very thread.
No, you posted a quote saying different powers are cumulative.
You have never posted any quote that states same powers aren't cumulative. Nor has anyone else.
There's a good reson for that (the rule doesn't exist).
Permissive rule set. You have to prove same is cumulative when the rules as written state different is cumulative. Proof is on you to show that multiple use of the same ability stack when the BRB gives permission for different abilities to stack. I quoted where permission has not only been given for different to be cumulative, but an actual restriction is given on bonuses or penalties from being cumulative if from multiple uses of the same ability.
This means that YOU have to prove "Same is cumulative"; I don't.
SJ
Bolded your lie.
Special rules do not dtack. Hammerhand isn't a special rule. Neither is "+1S". + is an inherently cumulative, by definition , operator. We are told that multiple modifiers are cumulative, and we Re given multiple modifiers when casting hammerhand twice.
You are as ever breaking the tenets, so please refrain from posting until up you can comply
Bolded what, the word ability? A generic term, often used by GW, including on pg. 32 where they use "ability" as a general descriptor followed "psychic powers" as a more specific example of an "ability"? Is that what you bolded?
So you are saying Stealth and Shrouded do not stack, despite the BRB specifically telling us Stealth and Shrouded stack?
So you are saying Rad Grenades do not stack with Enfeeble, despite the BRB telling us penalties from different abilities stack?
Are you telling us the +1 Strength from Furious Charge does not stack with the +2 Strength from using a Power Axe?
If your goal was to disprove my post of permissive rules telling us Different is cumulative therefore Same is not, making a statement that Special Rules are not cumulative must have been a typo.
That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.
J - no, the actual rules states that you cannot benefit from the same "special rule" more than once. You have lied and claimed this is a restriction on any ability, presumably in a vain attempt to mislead people into thinking +1S would fall into that category.
We do not need to disprove "different is cumulative therefore same is not" , as the premise is based on faulty logic - an exceedingly basic logical fallacy, that you keep insisting on making, presumably again to gloss over the complete lack of any rules support whatsoever in any of your arguments.
Hammer hand is cast, I have +1S. I cast it again. As per the rules on page two, when I have multiple modifiers - and I do, indisputably so when following actual written rules, and not made up garbage - I resolve them as per the normal rules of mathematics. So I add one S again.
RAW. Incontrovertible fact.
Find a restriction -one that exists in real rules, and isn't you lying again - or concede. Until then follow the tenets, and mark your posts as "hywpi", given they are not supported by any rules whatsoever.
That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.
Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.
PrinceRaven wrote: I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.
according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.
Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.
Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.
Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.
SJ
So your argument is that multiple Hammerhands are not cumulative because multiple Hammerhands are not cumulative?
That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.
Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.
SJ
Permissive ruleset, assumptions of denials do not trump rules-granted permission.
That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.
Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.
SJ
You're asking for a double permission.
Permission is already granted, from casting, resolving, allowing multiple modifiers right through the effects being naturally cumulative.
Everything in the order of operations has permission at every turn, you're after a second permission on top of what is already granted. It's not needed. You have permission to do everything involved in applying a second, third... power.
That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.
Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.
SJ
1) that isn't actually how a permissive ruleset works
2) good job we already have permission for multiple modifiers to accumulate then,
Noticing your abundant lack of a single relevant rules quote. Again.
As noted on previous posts you're looking for additional, special bunny permission , somehow not needed the first time not even hinted at in real rules, and hanging your entire argument off it
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
false.
40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.
That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.
Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.
SJ
1) that isn't actually how a permissive ruleset works
2) good job we already have permission for multiple modifiers to accumulate then,
Noticing your abundant lack of a single relevant rules quote. Again.
As noted on previous posts you're looking for additional, special bunny permission , somehow not needed the first time not even hinted at in real rules, and hanging your entire argument off it
false.
You have permission for multiple modifers to be cumulative for wargear, you have been given no permission for psychic powers to be cumulative. You have been given rules for modifiers which are cumulative and how to apply them.
The only psychic powers which are modifiers that have been given permission to be cumulative are different blessings/maledictions, or powers that spell out they are cumulative in their own description such as the power in the grey knights codex which adds +1 str which is not hammerhand.
kambien wrote: Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6
Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?
yep
Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?
Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place
false.
40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.
A. Page 2 does indeed state that maths applies to multiple modifiers.
B. I feel so sorry for people going through the American education system if you really think addition occurs before multiplication.
blaktoof wrote: 40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.
What page is "40K math" on please?
Specifically the game defined term of what the sysmbol "+" means.
You're stating that "+" means something other than the mathematical symbol for addition?
Blaktoof - so you claim 40k doesn't use bodmas , despite page two giving a lie to your concept? I'd love a page number for that.
Your second statement is also false, as has been proven by others, I just easy interested in whether you would try to actually defend your, frankly, bizarre contention that "normal maths" is addition before multiplication. Before you do I would suggest doing some research,
blaktoof wrote: 40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.
What page is "40K math" on please?
Specifically the game defined term of what the sysmbol "+" means.
You're stating that "+" means something other than the mathematical symbol for addition?
and just because an ability in a vacuum allows you to add +1 to something, does not give permission for the same ability to add +1 again. I realize some people fail to understand that and think solely that because it says +1 you can add it infinitum times without having the prerequisite permission for it to actually be cumulative.
first the modifier has to have permission to be cumulative.
Then you can actually cumulatively modify your stat if you have permission, the two are not hand in hand given.
psychic powers as per the entry for multiple modifiers are not one of the the things that are given blanket permission to be cumulative.
when you go into the more specific rules for psychic powers you then see that different blessings/maledictions are given permission to be cumulative. There is no permission for modifiers from the same blessings/maledictions to be cumulative.
so as you have multiples of the same blessing on a unit you then look at the blessing, does it allow for it to be cumulative with itself in its own rules? No.
Do the rules for blessings allow for multiples of the same blessings to be cumulative? no.
Do the rules for modifiers allow for psychic powers to modify a stat on their own without looking at the psychic power rules? no.
So you have a section at the beginning of the book that tells you how to modify a stat with wargear/special rules. And how to apply cumulative modifiers from war gear or special rules, and we have psychic powers which are not special rules. We can look in their own contained rules to see how they modify stats, but alas only different modifiers are cumulative, and we last have the entry for hammehand which does not say it is cumulative.
so nope, not cumulative.
if it were given permission to be cumulative we -could- go to the heading in the book which tells you how to apply multiple modifiers to a statistics which are cumulative, but that permission is not there.
blaktoof wrote: I cannot find anywhere in the rulebook that + is cumulative.
Can you find anywhere in the rulebook where "+" is defined?
If there's no rulebook definition then you'll have to look at the actual meaning of the symbol. You'll find that very much is cumulative. It's called addition.
I appreciate your opinion that blanket all things that say add should add.
I feel the rulebook does not agree with it in the sections regarding psychic powers or USRs however.
I understand outside of 40k if you have 5 of one thing and get +1 of that thing and +1 of that thing that is 7. However 40k has rules that sometimes contradict this by not allowing you to have +1 of the same thing more than once even if you have more than one of that thing unless you have been told you may.
They have no permission to modify a stat anywhere on their own, permissive rules set.
The restriction for universal special rules exists because they were already given permission to modify stats under modifiers p.2 which pertains to special rules and wargear. As psychic powers are neither special rules or wargear the rules on p.2 do not give you permission to use them to resolve the effects of psychic powers.
The rules under the psychic powers for blessing maledictions however do, they however only give permission for modifiers from different blessings to be cumulative.
Some psychic power entries do give permission for their specific power to be cumulative with itself, or in some cases [see grey knight codex hammer hand + might of titans] for the separate modifiers that modify the same stat to be cumulative.
so yes, there is no explicit restriction, there is just no permission anywhere for you to have the same psychic power be cumulative.
"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."
So, pray tell, are the rules for Hammerhand rules?
yes...however RAW they are neither special rules nor wargear so under the section for modifiers p.2 you cannot use those rules to modify a stat with hammerhand.
blaktoof wrote: They have no permission to modify a stat anywhere on their own, permissive rules set.
The restriction for universal special rules exists because they were already given permission to modify stats under modifiers p.2 which pertains to special rules and wargear. As psychic powers are neither special rules or wargear the rules on p.2 do not give you permission to use them to resolve the effects of psychic powers.
The rules under the psychic powers for blessing maledictions however do, they however only give permission for modifiers from different blessings to be cumulative.
Some psychic power entries do give permission for their specific power to be cumulative with itself, or in some cases [see grey knight codex hammer hand + might of titans] for the separate modifiers that modify the same stat to be cumulative.
so yes, there is no explicit restriction, there is just no permission anywhere for you to have the same psychic power be cumulative.
So the rules on page 2 don't apply, even though they apply to any rule which modifies? Please explain this contradiction between your argument and actual written rules.
blaktoof wrote: yes...however RAW they are neither special rules nor wargear so under the section for modifiers p.2 you cannot use those rules to modify a stat with hammerhand.
is hammerhand wargear or a special rule?
Are you saying that Hammerhand, which has rules that state that it modifies the strength characteristic, is, in fact, not a rule that modifies a characteristic?
blaktoof wrote: My argument is based solely on RAW, and like many people does not reflect how people actually play the game.
the rules on p.2 apply to any rule which is allowed to cumulative modify.
the rules on p.2 for adding a modifier are stated as pertaining to Wargear and special rules.
is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.
"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." (2)
I don't see the word Special Rules in there...
Two castings of Hammerhand are most definitely a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...
"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." (2)
...this is assuming we still talk about the OP's question here.
blaktoof wrote: My argument is based solely on RAW, and like many people does not reflect how people actually play the game.
the rules on p.2 apply to any rule which is allowed to cumulative modify.
the rules on p.2 for adding a modifier are stated as pertaining to Wargear and special rules.
is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.
Actually, Hammerhand does contain rules that bend or break the main rules in the BRB, specifically the ability to be added before multiplication, being used in the Assault phase, as well as the ability to change a unit's Strength characteristic by 1 for the duration of that round of combat. As such, Hammerhand does fall under the Special Rules restrictions on not being cumulative without specific permission, something Hammerhand lacks. Also, as a Psychic Power, Hammerhand falls under the general restriction on all Psychic Powers found at the top of pg.68 of the BRB, restricting cumulative modifiers to different powers. As Might of Titan (pg. 25, GK codex) does contain wording informing us that its +1 to Strength is cumulative with Hammerhand, yet Hammerhand lacks wording informing us of any intent for Hammerhand's modifier to be cumulative with itself, the +1 Strength bonus from Hammerhand only has permission to be applied once regardless of the number of castings.
You cast hammerhand once. RAW you may not use p.2 to modify a stat as it is neither wargear nor a special rule.
rules on p.2 refers RAI most likely refers to special rules as its a continuation of modifiers which spells out rules and special rules.
So you're making up the word "special" on the quote? Or is page two not talking about a combination of rules?
You're not discussing rules, given you're making up words, making up concepts such as + not being cumulative - by definition it IS - , and stating we cannot use real world maths definitions of + as 40k doesn't use real world maths, despite this not being at all correct.
blaktoof wrote: My argument is based solely on RAW, and like many people does not reflect how people actually play the game.
the rules on p.2 apply to any rule which is allowed to cumulative modify.
the rules on p.2 for adding a modifier are stated as pertaining to Wargear and special rules.
is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.
Actually, Hammerhand does contain rules that bend or break the main rules in the BRB, specifically the ability to be added before multiplication, being used in the Assault phase, as well as the ability to change a unit's Strength characteristic by 1 for the duration of that round of combat. As such, Hammerhand does fall under the Special Rules restrictions on not being cumulative without specific permission, something Hammerhand lacks. Also, as a Psychic Power, Hammerhand falls under the general restriction on all Psychic Powers found at the top of pg.68 of the BRB, restricting cumulative modifiers to different powers. As Might of Titan (pg. 25, GK codex) does contain wording informing us that its +1 to Strength is cumulative with Hammerhand, yet Hammerhand lacks wording informing us of any intent for Hammerhand's modifier to be cumulative with itself, the +1 Strength bonus from Hammerhand only has permission to be applied once regardless of the number of castings.
Other than that point, I support your argument.
SJ
Not dealing with all of the mistakes here, but just pointing out - you cannot state fhat permission (functionally redundant, but still permission) to do X is a restriction on doing Y. That is another logical fallacy
Thats not breaking or bending any rule; its called an exception. An exception is "permission" given to ignore a standing policy or rule, as if there is no complication.
What we have here is complication manifested on how people from different countries understand something based upon this very interesting take on english.
I do need help with something though... where in the BRB does it say that the BRB and codices are permissive styled rules?
blaktoof wrote: but a single one is not, and under the section for modifiers it states "special rules or wargear" is hammerhand either of those?
Does page 2 state that only special rules and wargear can modify characteristics?
Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's
characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+ I , +2,
etc.), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc.) or even setting its value (1,8,
etc.).
Nope, does it need to?
It spells out what can modify stats using those rules, perhaps they are being redundant and really mean "anything that modifies a models characteristics" they however do not say this.
blaktoof wrote: My argument is based solely on RAW, and like many people does not reflect how people actually play the game.
the rules on p.2 apply to any rule which is allowed to cumulative modify.
the rules on p.2 for adding a modifier are stated as pertaining to Wargear and special rules.
is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.
Actually, Hammerhand does contain rules that bend or break the main rules in the BRB, specifically the ability to be added before multiplication, being used in the Assault phase, as well as the ability to change a unit's Strength characteristic by 1 for the duration of that round of combat. As such, Hammerhand does fall under the Special Rules restrictions on not being cumulative without specific permission, something Hammerhand lacks. Also, as a Psychic Power, Hammerhand falls under the general restriction on all Psychic Powers found at the top of pg.68 of the BRB, restricting cumulative modifiers to different powers. As Might of Titan (pg. 25, GK codex) does contain wording informing us that its +1 to Strength is cumulative with Hammerhand, yet Hammerhand lacks wording informing us of any intent for Hammerhand's modifier to be cumulative with itself, the +1 Strength bonus from Hammerhand only has permission to be applied once regardless of the number of castings.
Other than that point, I support your argument.
SJ
Not dealing with all of the mistakes here, but just pointing out - you cannot state fhat permission (functionally redundant, but still permission) to do X is a restriction on doing Y. That is another logical fallacy
I do not disagree with you, however from a RAW stand point the rules as written show that a modifier can modify a stat if it comes from wargear or a special rule, on p.2
On multiple modifiers it says any combination of rules or wargear.
So either multiple modifiers RAI should be special rules and not just rules, or they intended for any rules to be cumulative but only wargear and special rules can modify a stat, or they intended for anything that says modify to modify but RAW they did write "special rules and wargear may modify a characteristics" therefore RAW those are the things given permission.
I agree that it is not logical to say that "these things may modify a stat" but "you can combine these things+ anything else to apply multiple modifiers" but it is what is written in the rules RAW, not what I have made up.
Yes, if you're claim is that the rules on page 2 deny permission to apply the strength modifier of Hammerhand because only wargear and special rules can, then you do in fact need rules to back that up.
Resolve psychc power, page 68 - "... you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
The entry for Hammerhand - "If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit )including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase."
PrinceRaven wrote: How is "the unit gains +1 strength" not permission to gain +1 strength?
here is an example.
I decide to cast a PSA at a unit.
I expend warp charge
I declare a target
I take psychic test
Deny the witch is failed
Resolve psychic power-
The unit I declared is in Line of Sight but outside of the PSA range, being in range is not a requirement for declare target for psychic powers.
Obviously i cannot resolve the power even though I made it to the resolve step as the unit is not in range, because permission for resolution doesnt come solely from making it to the resolve step.
PrinceRaven wrote: How is "the unit gains +1 strength" not permission to gain +1 strength?
here is an example.
I decide to cast a PSA at a unit.
I expend warp charge
I declare a target
I take psychic test
Deny the witch is failed
Resolve psychic power-
The unit I declared is in Line of Sight but outside of the PSA range, being in range is not a requirement for declare target for psychic powers.
Obviously i cannot resolve the power even though I made it to the resolve step as the unit is not in range, because permission for resolution doesnt come solely from making it to the resolve step.
Actually you can not cast a PSA on a unit out of range as you can not shoot them. you have to pick a different target. So the power resolves just fine.
"At least one weapon must be in range of the target unit. If no weapons are in range, then a different target must be chosen" (12)
"Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit doesn't shoot" (12)
PrinceRaven wrote: How is "the unit gains +1 strength" not permission to gain +1 strength?
here is an example.
I decide to cast a PSA at a unit.
I expend warp charge
I declare a target
I take psychic test
Deny the witch is failed
Resolve psychic power-
The unit I declared is in Line of Sight but outside of the PSA range, being in range is not a requirement for declare target for psychic powers.
Obviously i cannot resolve the power even though I made it to the resolve step as the unit is not in range, because permission for resolution doesnt come solely from making it to the resolve step.
Actually you can not cast a PSA on a unit out of range as you can not shoot them. you have to pick a different target. So the power resolves just fine.
"At least one weapon must be in range of the target unit. If no weapons are in range, then a different target must be chosen" (12)
"Any model that is found to be out of range of all visible enemy models in the target unit doesn't shoot" (12)
I agree with you that you cannot cast a psychic power on a unit that is not in range, however you can go through all of the steps in the process of casting a psychic power and end up at resolve the power on a target that is in line of sight but outside of range. therefore obviously making it to the "resolve psychic" power step does not automatically make the power have an affect on a unit, and you must consider the implications of the other rules contained within the BRB.
the point therin is that that rules for resolving psychic powers do not equal permission for the psychic power to have an effect without the inclusion of other rules within the book.
blaktoof wrote: I agree with you that you cannot cast a psychic power on a unit that is not in range, however you can go through all of the steps in the process of casting a psychic power and end up at resolve the power on a target that is in line of sight but outside of range. therefore obviously making it to the "resolve psychic" power step does not automatically make the power have an affect on a unit, and you must consider the implications of the other rules contained within the BRB.
the point therin is that that rules for resolving psychic powers do not equal permission for the psychic power to have an effect without the inclusion of other rules within the book.
"not automatically make the power have an affect on a unit" is resolving the power if that unit is out of range...
yes saying you can resolve the power at the resolve step is wrong because you are out of range, the point is the resolve step does not mean the power will automatically go into effect. you have to look at the other rules in the brb that affect the power, and if they are followed then it may go into effect.
Essentially you can reach the resolve power part of psychic powers and the power may not go into effect because of other rules ( in this case out of range) but you have still fulfilled the requirements towards trying to resolve the power.
In the case of everything modifying character values actually as it refers to "rules" and "rules" means everything in 40k - whether weapon, psychic power, special ability (and obviously special rules too) or anything, it's all "rules".
Prey tell how are the rules of a special rule not considered special rules? Powers are some of the rules of the psyker usr and are some how being considered standard rules. This perplexes me. Multiple modifiiers is not permission it is a tool of resolution if permission exists, please stop claiming it is permission.
Bausk wrote: Prey tell how are the rules of a special rule not considered special rules? Powers are some of the rules of the psyker usr and are some how being considered standard rules. This perplexes me. Multiple modifiiers is not permission it is a tool of resolution if permission exists, please stop claiming it is permission.
Bausk, since no one wanted to answer me earlier, is +1 S a special rule? If yes, does it stack with +1 S? If not, how do you know?
Bausk wrote: Prey tell how are the rules of a special rule not considered special rules? Powers are some of the rules of the psyker usr and are some how being considered standard rules. This perplexes me.
Are they listed as Special rules? I do not see psychic powers in the Special Rules section. It should not perplex you as there is nothing saying that Psychic powers, or the resulting Bonuses/penalties to stats are special rules. Therefore they are not.
Multiple modifiiers is not permission it is a tool of resolution if permission exists, please stop claiming it is permission.
It actually is permission to apply multiple modifiers cumulatively.
Bausk wrote: Prey tell how are the rules of a special rule not considered special rules? Powers are some of the rules of the psyker usr and are some how being considered standard rules. This perplexes me.
Are they listed as Special rules? I do not see psychic powers in the Special Rules section. It should not perplex you as there is nothing saying that Psychic powers, or the resulting Bonuses/penalties to stats are special rules. Therefore they are not.
Psyker is a Special rule listed in the BRB on pg. 41, which tells us the rules for a Psykers start on pg. 66.
Multiple modifiiers is not permission it is a tool of resolution if permission exists, please stop claiming it is permission.
It actually is permission to apply multiple modifiers cumulatively.
Please quote a passage on pg. 2 that mentions modifiers being cumulative.
Bausk wrote: Prey tell how are the rules of a special rule not considered special rules? Powers are some of the rules of the psyker usr and are some how being considered standard rules. This perplexes me.
Are they listed as Special rules? I do not see psychic powers in the Special Rules section. It should not perplex you as there is nothing saying that Psychic powers, or the resulting Bonuses/penalties to stats are special rules. Therefore they are not.
Psyker is a Special rule listed in the BRB on pg. 41, which tells us the rules for a Psykers start on pg. 66.
I said Psychic Powers. Not the Psyker Special Rule...
Please quote a passage on pg. 2 that mentions modifiers being cumulative.SJ
We have, but Ill post it again.
"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."
Hammerhand is a rule that modifies a characteristic (Gives +1 Str).
Therefore the base Str is 4, we apply any multipliers (No multipliers for dual castings of hammerhand) then we apply any additions or subtractions (We apply additions, so we apply +1 and +1 as they are both additions), then finally apply any set values (there are no set values for dual hammerhand castings)
Bausk wrote: Prey tell how are the rules of a special rule not considered special rules? Powers are some of the rules of the psyker usr and are some how being considered standard rules. This perplexes me.
Are they listed as Special rules? I do not see psychic powers in the Special Rules section. It should not perplex you as there is nothing saying that Psychic powers, or the resulting Bonuses/penalties to stats are special rules. Therefore they are not.
Psyker is a Special rule listed in the BRB on pg. 41, which tells us the rules for a Psykers start on pg. 66.
I said Psychic Powers. Not the Psyker Special Rule...
Ah but you see everything related to a special rule is also a special rule. You know, like The Scuttling Swarm making Tervigons troops choices? Tervigons are special rules.
DeathReaper, you failed to quote any mention of modifiers being cumulative, all you quoted was order of operations. Can you quote a single example where more than one of the same modifier are combined per the rules on pg. 2?
I'm sorry, but are you suggesting a unit that has had Hammerhand resolved on it twice does not have "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic" and thus may not "apply any additions or subtractions"?
jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper, you failed to quote any mention of modifiers being cumulative, all you quoted was order of operations. Can you quote a single example where more than one of the same modifier are combined per the rules on pg. 2?
SJ
Yes I did, let me underline it for you
""If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions..." (2)
They tell us to "apply any additions"
Hammerhand cast from a unit gives an addition to the units str.
Hammerhand cast from a IC in that same unit gives an addition to the units str.
Ergo... Page 2 applies and they in fact are cumulative
Princeraven: Do the Termigaunt have a special rule pertaining to how they are made, deployed or interact with the battle? Do they count as scoring units or are they nonscoring units? Its a terrible example, as it inherently cannot be cumulative and the unit itself has a host of special rules that are not standard to a Termigaunt Brood. Try again.
PrinceRaven wrote: I'm sorry, but are you suggesting a unit that has had Hammerhand resolved on it twice does not have "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic" and thus may not "apply any additions or subtractions"?
Not a combination, Hammer Hand is a source that has no permission to be cumulative with itself in its own text. A combination would come from differen sources or the same source if it has permission to be cumulative with itself.
Bausk wrote: Princeraven: Do the Termigaunt have a special rule pertaining to how they are made, deployed or interact with the battle? Do they count as scoring units or are they nonscoring units? Its a terrible example, as it inherently cannot be cumulative and the unit itself has a host of special rules that are not standard to a Termigaunt Brood. Try again.
It was a joke, dude...
PrinceRaven wrote: I'm sorry, but are you suggesting a unit that has had Hammerhand resolved on it twice does not have "a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic" and thus may not "apply any additions or subtractions"?
Not a combination, Hammer Hand is a source that has no permission to be cumulative with itself in its own text. A combination would come from differen sources or the same source if it has permission to be cumulative with itself.
There is no requirement for the combination of rules to be from different sources that I can see, could you quote it?
It was a terrible attempt at sarcasm, not a joke, but you get a reply anyway.
No requirment true, with that you're correct, however the point you fail to address is not all sources may be used cumulatively with themselves. As I stated in those situations only one of the same sources is used.
As to that point powers are generates by a usr just as much as +1S is generated by meeting the requirements of Furious Charge. For the any power to exist at all one needs to follow the rules for said usr: Psyker. The difference between the two is one is a simple one paragraph rule while the other has its own section detailing its use as it is far more complex.
Some special rules are almost as complex requiring several paragraphs to detail its correct use. But again they are no less the same as the humble Furious Charge.
As stated in the Psyker USR they are the full rules for the USR and by that they are the USR Psyker. Meaning my original statement that Powers are generated by the USR Psyker is correct RAW, not that they have access to them. It is stated explicitly there in the USR that they are the rules for the USR and not seperate to said USR as you have incorrectly asserted.
Which also means that powers, being the rules for the USR Psyker, are Special rules and thus the restriction for Special rules apply unless it is otherwise stated by the powers type or specific text.
Bausk wrote: As stated in the Psyker USR they are the full rules for the USR and by that they are the USR Psyker. Meaning my original statement that Powers are generated by the USR Psyker is correct RAW, not that they have access to them. It is stated explicitly there in the USR that they are the rules for the USR and not seperate to said USR as you have incorrectly asserted.
Which also means that powers, being the rules for the USR Psyker, are Special rules and thus the restriction for Special rules apply unless it is otherwise stated by the powers type or specific text.
Which part of it says that? You keep making claims that it explicitly states that psychic powers are an effect of the Psyker USR and not their own rules, but I've yet to see a single quote.
I have the rules for generating psychic powers on page 418 right now, and not once does it say that the Psyker USR generates powers, in fact it states multiple times that the powers are generated by the model from the psychic disciplines the Psyker knows, and the only references to the Psyker USR are in relation to the model.
Bausk wrote: As stated in the Psyker USR they are the full rules for the USR and by that they are the USR Psyker. Meaning my original statement that Powers are generated by the USR Psyker is correct RAW, not that they have access to them. It is stated explicitly there in the USR that they are the rules for the USR and not seperate to said USR as you have incorrectly asserted.
Which also means that powers, being the rules for the USR Psyker, are Special rules and thus the restriction for Special rules apply unless it is otherwise stated by the powers type or specific text.
That is funny, I do not see any Psychic powers on pages 66-69...
I only see rules on how to manifest psychic powers.
So the ability to use a Psychic power is a Special rule, but the Psychic powers themselves are not special rules.
If a unit has had Enfeeble casted on it, it can then not use Hammerhand, as it would be 'benefiting' (depending on who you ask) from the Psyker special rule twice.
Deathreaper: You must have overlooked the second paragraph of page 66 pertaining to what powers a psyker has. As stated page 66-69: including the generation of what powers a psker has, how many powers, how many warp charges a psyker has, the manifestation of said powers, the denial of said powers and even types of powers are listed.
Yet I feel this doesn't satisfy either of you're bias notions of evidence. The simple fact that the rules on pages 66-69 are the Psyker USRs rules is RAW as stated.
As such the use of any power, regardless of its origin be it codex or BRB, is part of these rules from selection to resolution.
Plus if you use Puppet Master, the effect of it is making an enemy model make a shooting attack, therefore enemy shooting attacks are now effects of a special rule and cannot be applied cumulatively.
If a unit has had Enfeeble casted on it, it can then not use Hammerhand, as it would be 'benefiting' (depending on who you ask) from the Psyker special rule twice.
The Eldar could not Guide/Fortune models, also.
Incorrect. The Psyker USR allows such powers to be cumulative (detailed on pages 66-69).
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
What is the benefit of the Psyker special rule? You become a Psyker, gaining a Mastery Level, psychic powers, and generate warp charges each turn.
You can only become a Psyker once, but you can gain multple warp charges, multiple psychic powers, and manifest several powers each turn.
PrinceRaven wrote: Plus if you use Puppet Master, the effect of it is making an enemy model make a shooting attack, therefore enemy shooting attacks are now effects of a special rule and cannot be applied cumulatively.
Also incorrect. Puppet Master is the power, hence part of the Psyker USR. The shooting attack is the effect/resolution. And again this shooting attack has special rules for its use much like your previous attempt at sarcasm. As it is not directed by the owning player, not conducted in the shooting phase etc.
PrinceRaven wrote: "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
What is the benefit of the Psyker special rule? You become a Psyker, gaining a Mastery Level, psychic powers, and generate warp charges each turn.
You can only become a Psyker once, but you can gain multple warp charges, multiple psychic powers, and manifest several powers each turn.
The benefit you ask is the whole set of rules detailed on pages 66-69 and there is where you find specific statements of how many times you may benefit from each part of this special rule and specific statements of parts being allowed to be cumulative.
Basically it covers the whole USR from start to finish with detailed added permissions and specific exceptions all the way to even the powers own text. Thus why some blessings and maledictions are cumulative (as stated in thier own text) with themselves and most are only cumulative with different powers (as stated under blessings and maledictions in the BRB).
As I said before, its a very large and complex USR.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrinceRaven wrote: Right, so the effect/resolution of a psychic power isn't a special rule, and is therefore not subject the special rule non-cumulative clause.
Good thing we cleared that up.
Hammerhand's +1 Strength modifier stacks.
For simplicity sake lets go with you on this one and say the resolution has no bearing on the subject. Hammerhand, like puppetmaster before it is a part of the Psyker USR so the +1S can be cumulative only if Hammerhand is allowed to be cumulative with itself.
Meaning stop jumping ahead to the resolution when you have not figured out if both can resolve as a cumulative resoluton.
Hammerhand is a power without a type correct? So read the base power rules and the rules for Hammerhand itself. If either grant such permission. then yes. If niether grant the permission the no.
For simplicity sake lets go with you on this one and say the resolution has no bearing on the subject. Hammerhand, like puppetmaster before it is a part of the Psyker USR so the +1S can be cumulative only if Hammerhand is allowed to be cumulative with itself.
Meaning stop jumping ahead to the resolution when you have not figured out if both can resolve as a cumulative resoluton.
Hammerhand is a power without a type correct? So read the base power rules and the rules for Hammerhand itself. If either grant such permission. then yes. If niether grant the permission the no.
Permission is granted by it's use of the + sign, which is an operator and cumulative by definition.
PrinceRaven wrote: Right, so the effect/resolution of a psychic power isn't a special rule, and is therefore not subject the special rule non-cumulative clause.
Good thing we cleared that up.
Hammerhand's +1 Strength modifier stacks.
For simplicity sake lets go with you on this one and say the resolution has no bearing on the subject. Hammerhand, like puppetmaster before it is a part of the Psyker USR so the +1S can be cumulative only if Hammerhand is allowed to be cumulative with itself.
Meaning stop jumping ahead to the resolution when you have not figured out if both can resolve as a cumulative resoluton.
Hammerhand is a power without a type correct? So read the base power rules and the rules for Hammerhand itself. If either grant such permission. then yes. If niether grant the permission the no.
Ah, so there's some sort of denial rule in play then, if general permission to manifest the power, resolve the power, and apply the +1 Strength modifier (which is given further permission by the Multiple Modifiers rule to be applied cumulatively with other modifiers) does not grant permission, and we need a specific permission rule to override said denial.
Could you quote it for me?
No the +1S is the effect which is not inherently cumulative. If you did read the sections I suggested and the result is all you have then no it is not. As you are attempting to apply two of the same effect.
It would be like mok spawn claiming +4 A for applying rage twice.
Bausk wrote: No the +1S is the effect which is not inherently cumulative. If you did read the sections I suggested and the result is all you have then no it is not. As you are attempting to apply two of the same effect.
It would be like mok spawn claiming +4 A for applying rage twice.
Rage is a special rule. +1 strength is indeed cumulative via the multiple modifiers as it is a rule that modifies a characteristic. I have rules-based permission to apply this strength modifier to the models in the unit, which overrides any assumptions that I cannot.
At every stage the special rule denial exists. The rules for Psykers make conditional alterations and/or exceptions to this. The key word there is conditional.
Skipping these conditions to the resolution to find justification in cumulative powers is not correct.
For example: You may use more than one power per turn on the condition you have a high enough mastery level, have enough warp charges and have appropriate powers to use.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Again using your misinterpreted version of skipping to tge effects the spawn has the rage usr for +2A and has a mok granting a second rage usr. Using just multiple modifiers alone and none of the conditions that precede it the spawn gain +4A as per multiple modifiers.
Bausk wrote: At every stage the special rule denial exists. The rules for Psykers make conditional alterations and/or exceptions to this. The key word there is conditional.
Skipping these conditions to the resolution to find justification in cumulative powers is not correct.
For example: You may use more than one power per turn on the condition you have a high enough mastery level, have enough warp charges and have appropriate powers to use.
So again, you are saying "hammerhand" is a special rule?
Given you were just, literally, proven wrong on that, I suggest you recant.
Bausk wrote: At every stage the special rule denial exists. The rules for Psykers make conditional alterations and/or exceptions to this. The key word there is conditional.
Skipping these conditions to the resolution to find justification in cumulative powers is not correct.
For example: You may use more than one power per turn on the condition you have a high enough mastery level, have enough warp charges and have appropriate powers to use.
The ability to use Psychic powers being granted by Psyker does not make them non-cumulative any more than permission to use Heavy Bolter being granted by Relentless does. The powers and their effects are not included in the Psyker special rule, they are in the psychic powers rules, because they are psychic powers not special rules.
Again using your misinterpreted version of skipping to tge effects the spawn has the rage usr for +2A and has a mok granting a second rage usr. Using just multiple modifiers alone and none of the conditions that precede it the spawn gain +4A as per multiple modifiers.
Doesn't quite work does it.
Except Rage, unlike Hammerhand, is a special rule and does have a rule supplying denial to the second Rage +2 attack modifier being applied.
jeffersonian000 wrote: DeathReaper, you failed to quote any mention of modifiers being cumulative, all you quoted was order of operations. Can you quote a single example where more than one of the same modifier are combined per the rules on pg. 2?
SJ
any additionS, as in, more than one addition.
By definition cumulative. Also, the "+" sign is by definition cumulative, unless you can prove otherwise using 40k rules
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
What is the benefit for the Psyker special rule? You are a Psyker.
Are the rules on page 66 the rules for the Psyker USR or for being a Psyker? Being a Psyker.
Permission is given, consistently, throughout the entire set of rules, for +1S to be added to +1S, as long as it isnt coming from the same special rule, or from something else that adds in an explicit restriction.
No amount of handwaving, and misrepresentation that "abilities" are restricted from being gained more than once, and illogic in claiming that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y, etc will get rid of that.
Can this thread be locked again? Yet again the no stack side cannot prove their case in any way.
Edit - This is not acceptable, Rule #1 is be polite. If you feel there is a problem, your solution is to hit the yellow triangle, not take it upon yourself to insult other users.
The point you clearly missed with my rage example is a + is not inherently cumulative. Even rage has conditions for ita use, they just are not as complex as the Psyker USR.
And no nos, I was not. Psyker USR on page 41 states that the rules for it are detailed in the section from page 66. The second paragraph of this section, which again as per page 41 are the rules for the Psyker USR, details where powers come from (read as chosen from).
Also in the pages 66-69, the rules for the Psyker USR, you will find manifesting powers, resolving powers, types of powers and even where to reference powers from. All this on a detailed section because they couldn't fit it all into the same space as other USRs.
The fact it has it's own section doesn't change the fact the entire section is the same as the one or so paragraphs other USRs get and as such is bound by the same rules.
There is a point of weariness though, when its the 5th or so thread where the same tired, debunked, illogical, made up from thin air arguments are presented as if they are new, or havent been proven wrong, and by the same posters. For example the "all psychic powers are special rules" "argument", whichy has bene proven wrong, comprehensively, in every single thread. Not even a shred of possibilty remains that that argument is correct - none. Yet, every time it rears its head.
Same for "permission to do X means you CANNOT do Y!" exercise in logical failure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bausk wrote: The point you clearly missed with my rage example is a + is not inherently cumulative. Even rage has conditions for ita use, they just are not as complex as the Psyker USR.
No, the point you are clearly missing is that + IS INHERENTLY CUMULATIVE, howveer the rules for Special Rules *restricts* that
There is NO SUCH restriciton on the +1S from hammerhand. Not one. As such, the GENERAL permisison for + to be cumulative remains.
One more time - the psychic power hammerhand is not a special rule. It IS a rule, but not a Special Rule.
Glad to see Nos is still relying on Multiple Modification as his only argument. Then when he's said it enough time to reaffirm his belief in it he turns to calling for the thread to be locked. Won't be long now till he starts ignoring people again. Classic Nos Argument strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the benefits of the psyker USR, the benefit is the conditional chance to negatively affect your enemy, positively affect yourself/allies or create an effect that can conditionaly do either.
If said clearly beneficial effects can or cannot be cumulative is up to the conditions of the type and power itself.
Bausk wrote: Glad to see Nos is still relying on Multiple Modification as his only argument. Then when he's said it enough time to reaffirm his belief in it he turns to calling for the thread to be locked. Won't be long now till he starts ignoring people again. Classic Nos Argument strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And as to the benefits of the psyker USR, the benefit is the conditional chance to negatively affect your enemy, positively affect yourself/allies or create an effect that can conditionaly do either.
If said clearly beneficial effects can or cannot be cumulative is up to the conditions of the type and power itself.
So if I cast two PSAs - the same one - at a target, does the unit suffer X or 2X wounds?
No answer to the indisputable fact trhat "+" is cumulative?
It isnt the only argument, as has been proven, just quite a core one you try to ignore, hoping it will go away. It wont.
Happyjew wrote: Bausk, I cast Leech Life on one of your units dealing 2 Wounds.
Another psyker casts Leech Life on the same unit causing 2 more Wounds.
How many Wounds does the unit suffer?
Assuming you are not a monsterous creature or Ahriman incorrectly attempting to manifest the same psa twice, successful psychic checks and failed deny checks.
Life Leech the power is a Witchfire so you would use its profile treating it as an assault weapon. Then clearly as per the shooting rules 4 wounds are lost assuming failed invul/cover saves granting the Life Leech Special Rule in the attacks profile.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nos: answered above.
And again + anythin is not in itself inherently cumulative. If that were the case we'd have mok spawn with +4A on the charge. The reason we don't is Rage has conditions from the base universal restriction to conditions of when to apply the modifier.
And again + anythin is not in itself inherently cumulative. If that were the case we'd have mok spawn with +4A on the charge. The reason we don't is Rage has conditions from the base universal restriction to conditions of when to apply the modifier.
No, again, you are making a really simple mistake.
+ is, by definition, an accumulative operator. AS in, it is axiomatic in mathematics. You cannot dispute this, at all. It is simply not possible to do so.
The reason MoK Spawn dont get +4A is there is a specific restriction on Special Rules, stating you do not get the benefit of them more than once. You've even quoted it, so we know you are aware of it.
If it did not have that restriction, indeed, by Maths being maths, you would have +4A.
There is NO SUCH restriction on the _1S from Hammerhand, as it is indisputably NOT a special rule.
Just by reading these threads makes me wonder if some people would argue in court that they were not speeding, because the speed limit did not specify that they cannot drive 137km/h in 80km/h area.
If it was simply an unqualified +1 then yes I would agree with you. However this is a conditional modifier of +1 that is dependant on a set of qualifiers and not simply an unqualified +1.
Bausk wrote: The point you clearly missed with my rage example is a + is not inherently cumulative. Even rage has conditions for ita use, they just are not as complex as the Psyker USR.
Well it's a terrible example, as it has a rule that explicitly states that permission is denied for the second rage to apply.
And no nos, I was not. Psyker USR on page 41 states that the rules for it are detailed in the section from page 66. The second paragraph of this section, which again as per page 41 are the rules for the Psyker USR, details where powers come from (read as chosen from).
Also in the pages 66-69, the rules for the Psyker USR, you will find manifesting powers, resolving powers, types of powers and even where to reference powers from. All this on a detailed section because they couldn't fit it all into the same space as other USRs.
Correction, the rules for Psykers are found on pages 66-69, the rules for the Psyker USR is on page 41, said rules being essentially "the unit is a Psyker, check pages 66-69 for what that means". I fully agree that per the Special Rule restriction a model cannot have the Psyker USR applied twice to become a double psyker (without specific permission, see: Kairos Fateweaver), your claims that Psyker rules and by extension the effects of psychic powers are also limited by that rule have no rules support.
Bausk wrote: Glad to see Nos is still relying on Multiple Modification as his only argument. Then when he's said it enough time to reaffirm his belief in it he turns to calling for the thread to be locked. Won't be long now till he starts ignoring people again. Classic Nos Argument strategy.
Naw wrote: Just by reading these threads makes me wonder if some people would argue in court that they were not speeding, because the speed limit did not specify that they cannot drive 137km/h in 80km/h area.
Except here we HAVE permisison to drive 137km/h, as the 80km/h restriction does not apply to our class of vehicle, and we have general permission to drive as fast as we wish.
Bausk - any chance of you finding any rules to match what you wrote? Those terms are new.
"+" is an accumulative modifier by definition. Do you agree or disagree?
Permission is given, consistently, throughout the entire set of rules, for +1S to be added to +1S, as long as it isnt coming from the same special rule, or from something else that adds in an explicit restriction.
No amount of handwaving, and misrepresentation that "abilities" are restricted from being gained more than once, and illogic in claiming that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y, etc will get rid of that.
Can this thread be locked again? Yet again the no stack side cannot prove their case in any way.
false.
permission is not given for +1 str from all sources to be +1 strength.
rules are given for how to apply modifiers =/= permission
if the rules on p.2 were blanket permission then furious charge would stack with itself.
there is no permission for the same modifier from a psychic power to be given if the same psychic power is already giving a modifier, there is permission for different psychic powers to give the same modifier. hammerhand is not different from hammerhand.
There is no outright denial of permission but there is outright permission of allowing only different modifiers to stack. if it were meant to be other than different modifiers why did they specify different modifiers may stack, instead they would not have to have anything in there about stacking as p.2 would cover it solely like some people seem to mistakenly believe.
RAW permission exists for different modifiers from blessings/maledictions.
Permission does not exist for same modifiers from psychic powers to stack.
Permission is given, consistently, throughout the entire set of rules, for +1S to be added to +1S, as long as it isnt coming from the same special rule, or from something else that adds in an explicit restriction.
No amount of handwaving, and misrepresentation that "abilities" are restricted from being gained more than once, and illogic in claiming that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y, etc will get rid of that.
Can this thread be locked again? Yet again the no stack side cannot prove their case in any way.
false.
permission is not given for +1 str from all sources to be +1 strength.
rules are given for how to apply modifiers =/= permission
if the rules on p.2 were blanket permission then furious charge would stack with itself.
Except for that pesky rule that says "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
So the rules on page 2 are blanket permission to do maths. Since resolving the power according to its text requires doing maths, page 2 is sufficient permission. Found a denial yet?
Hmmmm I just re-read the part on psychic powers and stacking and I guess I know where the "con-stacking" side has a misunderstanding. Quoting for future reference:
Unless specificallystated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative.
This applies for all kind of "special rules". Now - what are "special rules"? The rulebook says that...
Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
...and this might make people think that psychic powers are special rules. But the rulebook explicitely tells us what "special rules" are:
For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order.
...just in front of the list that contains all basic "special rules". At the same time, it says that those aren't all "special rules":
Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.
...but then says where to find them.
The often quoted...
Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.
...can be found under "Blessings". Hammerhand, however, isn't a blessing as it comes from an old codex and therefore doesn't have a specific type of psychic power:
If a psychic power does not have a type, the rules for using it will be clearly expressed within its entry.
...and in the GK codex, it doesn't say that it cannot stack.
So, all in all, I'd say that it stacks, unless someone can point me to the page where it says that psychic powers do not stack.
Since the non-stacking is continuing with stating that there is denial:
- It is the assault phase after assault moves but before blows are struck, my Psyker has a warp charge available and has not used used Hammerhand this turn, so I have permission to manifest Hammerhand.
- I have permission to follow the usual steps for manifesting a psychic power in pages 67=68.
- I have permission to resolve the power according to instructions in its entry.
- The Hammerhand entry instructs me to apply +1 Strength to the unit, so I do.
- The unit already has had Hammerhand cast on it, so I have 2 +1 Strength modifiers, following the rules for multiple modifiers, Each model's current strength is now +2.
resolution of the power is not permission to ignore other rules, as has been shown by PSAs making it to the resolution step even if they are out of range.
blaktoof wrote: resolution of the power is not permission to ignore other rules, as has been shown by PSAs making it to the resolution step even if they are out of range.
What other rules? What rule restricts resolution of the power? Please cite one.
edit: And no, a witchfire cannot make it to the resolution step even if it's out of range - checking range and LoS is done before even testing for the power.
you are ignoring that permission is given for psychic powers from different sources to stack.
There is no permission for psychic powers from the same source to stack.
lack of denial is a strawman arguement as there is no denial that I may not perform a shooting attack during an opponents shooting phase, just like there is no denial that I may not pick up my opponents models and move them to put them in range of an assault.
blaktoof wrote: There is no permission for psychic powers from the same source to stack.
So you're asserting page 2 doesn't apply?
Please explain why.
lack of denial is a strawman arguement as there is no denial that I may not perform a shooting attack during an opponents shooting phase, just like there is no denial that I may not pick up my opponents models and move them to put them in range of an assault.
It's not a strawman - permission exists, now you need to deny it. You've asserted it's denied, please prove it.
blaktoof wrote: you are ignoring that permission is given for psychic powers from different sources to stack.
No I am not, I am merely discounting it as irrelevant for this discussion.
There is no permission for psychic powers from the same source to stack.
It has already been proved there is, I even have a nice little summary just above.
lack of denial is a strawman arguement as there is no denial that I may not perform a shooting attack during an opponents shooting phase, just like there is no denial that I may not pick up my opponents models and move them to put them in range of an assault.
There is in fact denial for both of those things, it as an assumption of a permissive ruleset that everything is denied without permission.
Lack of denial is not my argument, Proof of permission in the face of lack of denial is my argument.
Still no actual rules quotes to back up your argument, I see.
that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.
blaktoof wrote: that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.
That's an incorrect and misleading statement. Perhaps you should step back and not examine this issue with a bias? You seem to have one.
blaktoof wrote: that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.
A rule that says different powers are cumulative does not apply to this discussion because we are not discussing different powers. Is there some reason you think permission for different powers to stack applies in this instance? It seems quite contradictory to your stance on the issue.
Bausk wrote: No the +1S is the effect which is not inherently cumulative. If you did read the sections I suggested and the result is all you have then no it is not. As you are attempting to apply two of the same effect.
(Emphasis mine) Except the underlined is incorrect.
+1 Strength is inherently cumulative as it follows the basic rules for math. The game uses the basic rules for math as proven by page 2.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...the "+" sign is by definition cumulative, unless you can prove otherwise using 40k rules
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...the "+" sign is by definition cumulative, unless you can prove otherwise using 40k rules
This is correct.
Cover saves provide a "+" symbol , are they now stacking as well ?
In the case of saves, the + sign is on the wrong side of the number to parse mathematically (at least without a second number) and we are specifically informed about how we are to read that in the context of the rules.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...the "+" sign is by definition cumulative, unless you can prove otherwise using 40k rules
This is correct.
Cover saves provide a "+" symbol , are they now stacking as well ?
Something like stealth that gives +1 to your cover save, and something like shrouded that gives +2 to your cover save, Yes they are cumulative because of the rules of math...
Stealth twice is not cumulative because of the rule "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." (32)
Had that not been there two instances of stealth would indeed add +1 and +1 to your cover save.
Thank you, fixed my post. not sure how I did that, need more coffee.
blaktoof wrote: that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) Does noty mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative.
Actually, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative, because the statement is permissive. As we have permission for different powers to be cumulative, by omission same powers are not cumulative. That is how a permissive rule set works; permission notes what you can do, omission leaves everything not noted as being things you can't do.
We have permission for the effects of different powers to be cumulative, in a rule set that has already informed us that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. By omission, multiple uses of the same power are not cumulative, because the effects of different abilities are cumulative.
jeffersonian000 wrote: Actually, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative, because the statement is permissive. As we have permission for different powers to be cumulative, by omission same powers are not cumulative. That is how a permissive rule set works; permission notes what you can do, omission leaves everything not noted as being things you can't do.
We have permission for the effects of different powers to be cumulative, in a rule set that has already informed us that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. By omission, multiple uses of the same power are not cumulative, because the effects of different abilities are cumulative.
SJ
No. Just, no. Stop pulling that same illogical argument out each time.
Permission to do X is NOT SAYING you may not do Y. It is, in fact, silent on Y.
Given you must be aware you are posting the same logical fallacy repeatedly, I assume you are now trolling.
Oh, and we have permission from page two, you cannot cite denial of this permission - not using written rules that exist anyway - so our argument is proven. Please correct your postings to reflect that they are not, in fact, based on a single written rule.
Bausk - + is! by definition, accumulative. As in, your opinion is noted, but it is plain wrong.. As in, you cannot do maths if your opinion were corrxt.
As you have been told, and again must be able to parse, the ONLY REASON 2*Furious Charge doesn't result in +2S is BECAUSE of the special rule. Not in spite of it, which is what your argument leads to .
jeffersonian000 wrote:Actually, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative, because the statement is permissive. As we have permission for different powers to be cumulative, by omission same powers are not cumulative. That is how a permissive rule set works; permission notes what you can do, omission leaves everything not noted as being things you can't do.
Yes, it does not provide permission to stack multiple uses of the same power cumulatively, fortunately we have that permission from other sources.
We have permission for the effects of different powers to be cumulative, in a rule set that has already informed us that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. By omission, multiple uses of the same power are not cumulative, because the effects of different abilities are cumulative.
Omission does not provide denial, it simply means that the assumption of denial still stands unless another rule provides permission.
Sigvatr wrote: The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:
Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings
Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect
What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?
Hammerhand
Might of Titan
Iron Arm
SJ
I think you misread his post...
He said "the exact same effect"
Hammerhand does not have the exact same effect as Might of Titan which in turn does not have the exact same effect as Iron Arm...
All three provide a bonus to Strength, are psychic powers, and are cumulative per the BRB. In fact, it is because they are different that their bonus to Strength is cumulative.
Sigvatr wrote: The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:
Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings
Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect
What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?
This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two. There can never be multiple castings of the same named power from a single psyker so even entertaining the notion that different references different psykers casting the same named power is ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Having the exact same effect is not what the rule states. It referenced bonuses not effects and definitely doesn't state anything of exact bonuses. The three examples of powers given all grant a bonus to S and all 3 are different thus legal.
Bausk - so you've not agreed yet that + is accumulative by definition? Or will you claim that the reason it isn't is that you cannot gain the bonus from special rules more than once, despite that being because there is a specific rule for that case, which is nothing to do with +?
Jeffersonian - so no response to the fact your argument was debunked? Or will you ignore it and claim, again, that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y?
Bausk wrote: This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.
Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?
We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6
As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan. If the +1s are both com Hammerhand or Might, then your 4+1+1 example will only net you a 5. The rules for this are explain on pages 32 and 68, which change the main rules of the game found on page 2.
SJ
PS - I no longer feed the Nos. Nos refuses to prove his statements, which violates the forum tenets. He also further violates the forum tenets by telling others their arguments are wrong without backing up his statements with rules. As such, I choose to simply ignore him, rather than feeding him. Maybe he'll go away, or start following the tenets.
Bausk wrote: This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.
Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?
We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6
As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan. If the +1s are both com Hammerhand or Might, then your 4+1+1 example will only net you a 5. The rules for this are explain on pages 32 and 68, which change the main rules of the game found on page 2.
Please provide a rule that supports the underlined, I cannot find any on either page you have stated.
PS - I no longer feed the Nos. Nos refuses to prove his statements, which violates the forum tenets. He also further violates the forum tenets by telling others their arguments are wrong without backing up his statements with rules. As such, I choose to simply ignore him, rather than feeding him. Maybe he'll go away, or start following the tenets.
Judging by your recent arguments I would accuse you of this before I would nosferatu.
This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two. There can never be multiple castings of the same named power from a single psyker so even entertaining the notion that different references different psykers casting the same named power is ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Having the exact same effect is not what the rule states. It referenced bonuses not effects and definitely doesn't state anything of exact bonuses. The three examples of powers given all grant a bonus to S and all 3 are different thus legal.
First of all, note that I am merely pointing out what either side has to offer, not really having taken a stance yet.
In general: a bonus of +1 to Strength is a different effect than a bonus of +2 to Strength. It's a different effect by its very definition: it does something different. Different psykers casting the same power isn't "ridiculous" - Hammerhand, for example, is that exact situation.
Jeffersonian - another lie. Use the yellow triangle of friendship if you think I am trolling, however it is a complete lie to state I have not backed up my argument when I have. I have also be debunked YOUR argument time and time again, yet you pretend that you based-on-a-fallacy argument holds any merit.
As such, your argument is conceded. Nothing you post here should be considered RAW by anyone.
Bausk wrote: This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.
Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?
We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6
As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan. If the +1s are both com Hammerhand or Might, then your 4+1+1 example will only net you a 5. The rules for this are explain on pages 32 and 68, which change the main rules of the game found on page 2.
Please provide a rule that supports the underlined, I cannot find any on either page you have stated.
As I stated in the very post you are quoting, the rules in question have been quoted, cited, referenced, and paraphrased in this very thread. Despite your inability to read (or is it your refusal to read?), I re-quote the quoted quotes:
Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Precedence is set for multiples of the same modifiers only being cumulative when coming from different abilities. You will of course argue that psychic powers are not special rules, to which was already quoted from page 41 of the BRB, top of page, under Psyker:
"A model with this special rules is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Pages 66-69 cover the special rules for the Psyker USR, just like page 36 covers the special rules for the Deep Strike USR. On page 68, last sentence under Resolve Psychic Power:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Without the above quote from page 68, no psychic powers would be cumulative due to the restriction quoted from page 32. Taking both the restriction on page 32 as well as the permission on page 68, we are able to stack modifiers from different powers, yet are not able to stack modifiers from multiple uses of the same power. Further, we are informed on page 32, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
An example of a "main game rule" is the order of operations found on page 2 under Multiple Modifiers. And example of a special rule bending or breaking a main game rule is found on page 25 of the Grey Knight codex under Hammerhand, 2nd paragraph:
"This power is used during the Assault phase in either player's turn, after moves have been made, but before any blows have been struck." Here we see a rule allowing a psychic power to be used during the Assault phase, rather than the Movement or Shooting phases, and permission to use the power during your opponent's turn.
Next, we have in the same paragraph, "if the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase." Here we have a rule granting a characteristic modifier only during the Assault phase, which is provided to all models in unit much like a Blessing.
And finally, the last sentence in that paragraph, "Note that this Strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for Nemesis Daemon hammers and so forth." In this rule, we break the main game rules found on page 2 by applying an addition before multiplication.
All three sentences in that paragraph on page 25 of the GK codex fall under the rules and restrictions detailed on page 32 and page 68 of the BRB. This means that multiple uses of Hammerhand will not provide more than a single +1 to Strength. Thankfully, Might if Titan is on the same page, has an additional +1 to Strength, and tells us, "The Strength bonus from Might of Titan is cumulative with that from Hammerhand."
I can lead a gamer to rules, but I can't make them think.
PS - I no longer feed the Nos. Nos refuses to prove his statements, which violates the forum tenets. He also further violates the forum tenets by telling others their arguments are wrong without backing up his statements with rules. As such, I choose to simply ignore him, rather than feeding him. Maybe he'll go away, or start following the tenets.
Judging by your recent arguments I would accuse you of this before I would nosferatu.
Feel free to ignore me, then. At least then I will know why you don't read what you quote.
Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules: "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Psychic powers are NOT Special Rules. This is extremely important. I made a detailed post showing why they aren't.
In 40k, special rules are very specific. Special Rules are a rules term on their own.
Psyker is a USR, that is fully correct! Psychic Powers, however, are not. They are Psychic Powers and therefore a rules term on their own.
You gotta be real precise when using those terms and in regards to the "special rule" term confusion:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Psychic powers are NOT Special Rules. This is extremely important. I made a detailed post showing why they aren't.
In 40k, special rules are very specific. Special Rules are a rules term on their own.
Psyker is a USR, that is fully correct! Psychic Powers, however, are not. They are Psychic Powers and therefore a rules term on their own.
You gotta be real precise when using those terms and in regards to the "special rule" term confusion:
6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.
I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it. See my post above.
jeffersonian000 wrote: As I stated in the very post you are quoting, the rules in question have been quoted, cited, referenced, and paraphrased in this very thread. Despite your inability to read (or is it your refusal to read?), I re-quote the quoted quotes:
Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."
Precedence is set for multiples of the same modifiers only being cumulative when coming from different abilities. You will of course argue that psychic powers are not special rules, to which was already quoted from page 41 of the BRB, top of page, under Psyker:
"A model with this special rules is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Pages 66-69 cover the special rules for the Psyker USR, just like page 36 covers the special rules for the Deep Strike USR. On page 68, last sentence under Resolve Psychic Power:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."
Without the above quote from page 68, no psychic powers would be cumulative due to the restriction quoted from page 32. Taking both the restriction on page 32 as well as the permission on page 68, we are able to stack modifiers from different powers, yet are not able to stack modifiers from multiple uses of the same power. Further, we are informed on page 32, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."
This is where your argument falls apart, the benefit of the Psyker USR is not "all the rules for Psykers on pages 66-68" it is being a Psyker. The rules on pages 66-68 are for Psykers, not the Psyker USR, and are therefore not part of the Special Rule. +1 strength modifier from Hammerhand is not subject to the restriction on page 32, leaving you without a source of denial.
Sigvatr wrote: Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?
I posted rules supporting my view. You post "no, you're wrong!", without supporting your point of view with actual rules. As such, I respect that you have an opinion, I just disagree because your opinion has no support in the rules.
Sigvatr wrote: Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?
I posted rules supporting my view. You post "no, you're wrong!", without supporting your point of view with actual rules. As such, I respect that you have an opinion, I just disagree because your opinion has no support in the rules.
SJ
Actually, you posted an opinion, based on a logical fallacy, and then posted rules that say nothing to do with what you're claiming. So no, you have a factually incorrect opinion, disproven by written rules, and nothing more.
Sigvatr wrote: Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?
I posted rules supporting my view. You post "no, you're wrong!", without supporting your point of view with actual rules. As such, I respect that you have an opinion, I just disagree because your opinion has no support in the rules.
SJ
Huh? I quoted directly from the book, from the special rules chapter in the BRB O_o
Here, for reference, again...
Sigvatr wrote: Hmmmm I just re-read the part on psychic powers and stacking and I guess I know where the "con-stacking" side has a misunderstanding. Quoting for future reference:
Now - what are "special rules"? The rulebook says that...
Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
...and this might make people think that psychic powers are special rules. But the rulebook explicitely tells us what "special rules" are:
For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order.
...just in front of the list that contains all basic "special rules". At the same time, it says that those aren't all "special rules":
Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.
...but then says where to find them.
The often quoted...
Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.
...can be found under "Blessings". Hammerhand, however, isn't a blessing as it comes from an old codex and therefore doesn't have a specific type of psychic power:
If a psychic power does not have a type, the rules for using it will be clearly expressed within its entry.
...and in the GK codex, it doesn't say that it cannot stack.
Please refer to actual points and back your statements up with (in the very best case) rule quotations. Otherwise, this thread has lost its justification. Remember that the aim of YMDC isn't to find out who "wins" a rules discussion. Everyone makes mistakes when using the vague rules GW offers and this applies to new people as well to others with thousands of posts. The aim of YMDC is to get as close to the truth as possible by stricly applying RAW, whether it makes sense or not.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Actually, you posted an opinion, based on a logical fallacy, and then posted rules that say nothing to do with what you're claiming. So no, you have a factually incorrect opinion, disproven by written rules, and nothing more.
Don't be too harsh, he did post an argument based upon quoted rules.
Sigvatr wrote: ...and what about the points stated there? Oo
You stated that Psychic Powers are not Special Rules, and further stated you supported this opinion in detail with supporting rule.
I posted a detailed argument showing Psychic Powers fall under Special rules, fully supported by the rules. Having reviewed your "proof", I found that we are in fundamental disagreement. You further posting a simple statement that I am wrong moved me in no way to go through your previous post. As stating "you are wrong" without stating why that person is incorrect goes against the forums tenets, my simply stating that I disagree with you as seen in my previous post was sufficient rather than repost my argument all over again. If you want a point by point break down of where I felt your point goes wrong, re-read the post of mine you claimed is "wrong".
Bausk wrote: This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.
Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?
We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6
As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan.
I read the whole thread, I have not seen any quotes that say "4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities" (emphasis mine) the underlined is simply not in the rules.
None of the rules in your post on the previous page restrict two Hammerhands from resolving and applying their effects.
Where exactly does it state that psychic powers are special rules?
Keep in mind that we use a permissive ruleset. RAW, a seemingly logic connection between the USR "Psyker" and psychic powers therefore being special rules isn't enough.
I stated quotes that explicitely tell you what special rules are. In a permissive ruleset, you need to either quote where it says that psychic powers are special rules or drop the point.
Sigvatr wrote: Where exactly does it state that psychic powers are special rules?
Keep in mind that we use a permissive ruleset. RAW, a seemingly logic connection between the USR "Psyker" and psychic powers therefore being special rules isn't enough.
I stated quotes that explicitely tell you what special rules are. In a permissive ruleset, you need to either quote where it says that psychic powers are special rules or drop the point.
Pg. 41, upper left corner, under the heading "Psyker". Of course, I and others already cite and quoted that. As to the 4+1+1 does not necessarily equal 6, I cited and quoted those rules, too, back a page on this thread.
Sigvatr wrote: Where exactly does it state that psychic powers are special rules?
Keep in mind that we use a permissive ruleset. RAW, a seemingly logic connection between the USR "Psyker" and psychic powers therefore being special rules isn't enough.
I stated quotes that explicitely tell you what special rules are. In a permissive ruleset, you need to either quote where it says that psychic powers are special rules or drop the point.
Pg. 41, upper left corner, under the heading "Psyker". Of course, I and others already cite and quoted that. As to the 4+1+1 does not necessarily equal 6, I cited and quoted those rules, too, back a page on this thread.
SJ
Again: you have to be precise.
Nowhere does it state that Psychic Powers are special rules. Psyker is a USR because it is explicitely stated in the rulebook. Psychic Powers are never stated as being special rules.
Again: either point out the exact spot where it says that Psychic Powers are special rules or your point is void.
In this case, you are free to silently back off the thread as well, a mere misunderstanding, that can happen to everyone, is no need to become irrational and get overly defensive.
Sigvatr wrote: Where exactly does it state that psychic powers are special rules?
Keep in mind that we use a permissive ruleset. RAW, a seemingly logic connection between the USR "Psyker" and psychic powers therefore being special rules isn't enough.
I stated quotes that explicitely tell you what special rules are. In a permissive ruleset, you need to either quote where it says that psychic powers are special rules or drop the point.
Pg. 41, upper left corner, under the heading "Psyker". Of course, I and others already cite and quoted that. As to the 4+1+1 does not necessarily equal 6, I cited and quoted those rules, too, back a page on this thread.
SJ
Again: you have to be precise.
Nowhere does it state that Psychic Powers are special rules. Psyker is a USR because it is explicitely stated in the rulebook. Psychic Powers are never stated as being special rules.
Again: either point out the exact spot where it says that Psychic Power are special rules or your point is void.
Incorrect. Warhammer 40,000 6th Edition is not a precise rule set, and precision at the level you are implying does not exist in the current edition of the game. GW does not provide a glossary of key words or terms, they introduce key concepts that might get a reference-able tag line or phrase. In the case of Psychic Powers, we are first given the "main game rules", followed by "special rules", followed by "Universal Special Rules", to which "Psyker" has an entire section of the book dedicated to explaining how that one USR works. So no, there is no precise spot in the BRB that states Psychic Powers are Special Rules. There are, however, 6 pages of rules in a 431 page book detailing how to treat rules that modify how the game play, and Psychic Powes are detailed on all 6 of those pages, which are pages 32, 41, 66, 67, 68, and 69. I have quoted all 6 pages, and have shown how the rules as written cover any game changing effects from weapons to terrain to missions to psychic powers, all of which are cover on page 32, which deals with special rules, to which psychic powers are named as a source.
Please feel free to quote any of this out of context, as I'm sure you will.
jeffersonian000 wrote: So no, there is no precise spot in the BRB that states Psychic Powers are Special Rules.
This seals the deal. Your entire argumentation revolves around Psychic Powers being special rules. The BRB, however, explicitely and literally lists all special rules - and Psychic Powers are not listed under those. As a consequence, in order to still gain that status and officially be special rules, there would have to be a part in the rules that explicitely calls them special rules - and as both you and me confirmed, this is not the case.
Psychic Powers therefore are not special rules and therefore do not follow anything that refers to special rules. In the case at hand, this means that anything that would make it impossible to be stacked for special rules is void when it comes to discussing Psychic Powers.
I am glad this got settled. One thing to keep in mind for the future: YMDC solely revolves around RAW - literally! Rules as Written. Basing a ruling on the, seemingly, logical conclusion you make is a natural way to solve problems. That is, however, HYWPI, and not what YMDC is for. Whether it makes sense or not, RAW is different from HYWPI in some cases and even rejects normal common sense.
I have exact and direct quotes from the BRB listing all special rules in the game (and hinting at those that aren't), which is pure RAW. You base yours on the assumption that Psyker being a USR immediately means that all Psychic Powers are special rules too. This is not RAW as you got no written rule to back it up.
Quoted from The Tennets of YMDC:
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
Your way of playing is fine if your opponents agree on it, but it's not RAW and therefore doesn't belong in YMDC.
So, for everyone just tuning in to the thread:
Hammerhead, or rather its beneficial S+1 effect, is therefore stackable in reference to p.2 stating that anything stacks (and how) unless otherwise stated - and since this is not the case here, the motion stands.
Feel free to come back to the problem at hand from a different angle, maybe there are still rules we did not find yet. This very argument of yours about Psychic Powers being special rules, however, has been debunked in detail and is void.
Thanks for keeping the discussion civil though, sadly, that's not a given in YMDC.
Sigvatr wrote: Where exactly does it state that psychic powers are special rules?
Keep in mind that we use a permissive ruleset. RAW, a seemingly logic connection between the USR "Psyker" and psychic powers therefore being special rules isn't enough.
I stated quotes that explicitely tell you what special rules are. In a permissive ruleset, you need to either quote where it says that psychic powers are special rules or drop the point.
Pg. 41, upper left corner, under the heading "Psyker". Of course, I and others already cite and quoted that. As to the 4+1+1 does not necessarily equal 6, I cited and quoted those rules, too, back a page on this thread.
SJ
I see you're completely ignoring my argument that the rules on pages 66-68, 418-423 and the Psychic Power entries in codices are the rules for Psykers and Psychic Powers, not the Psyker USR. Is that because you can't disprove it?
Sigvatr wrote: Where exactly does it state that psychic powers are special rules?
Keep in mind that we use a permissive ruleset. RAW, a seemingly logic connection between the USR "Psyker" and psychic powers therefore being special rules isn't enough.
I stated quotes that explicitely tell you what special rules are. In a permissive ruleset, you need to either quote where it says that psychic powers are special rules or drop the point.
Pg. 41, upper left corner, under the heading "Psyker". Of course, I and others already cite and quoted that. As to the 4+1+1 does not necessarily equal 6, I cited and quoted those rules, too, back a page on this thread.
SJ
I see you're completely ignoring my argument that the rules on pages 66-68, 418-423 and the Psychic Power entries in codices are the rules for Psykers and Psychic Powers, not the Psyker USR. Is that because you can't disprove it?
Not ignoring. I stand by my statement, and hold that your premise is too narrow and exclusive, as the rules support Peych powers falling under the restrictions and limitation of Special Rules.
And I hold my statement that your argument is based on a false premise. It seems we're at an impasse. Shall we just call it and let the thread vanish into page 2 obscurity?
PrinceRaven wrote: And I hold my statement that your argument is based on a false premise. It seems we're at an impasse. Shall we just call it and let the thread vanish into page 2 obscurity?
Was always my intention. Been saying this requires a GW fix or TO attention since last year.
1) Mastery Levels are a special rule, e.g. pg24 of Codex GK
2) Psyker is a special rule, e.g. BRB pg41
3) Psykic test is a special rule, being part of Psykers subitem
4) Powers without type, BRB 68, "rules for using it will be clearly expressed within its entry"
5) Hammerhand, Codex GKpg 25, "this strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers"
6) Might of Titan, Codex GKpg 25, "strength bonus from MoT is cumulative with that from Hammerhand"
7) Psykic test is also a special rule, by passing the check a power can be manifested, BRB rules under Psyker special rule
8) BRBpg 2 tells to multiply, then add. Hammerhand breaks this rule, thus making it a special rule
9) BRBpg 32, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main rules, it is represented by a special rule" -> it can't get more clear than that
10) BRBpg 32 "What special rules do I have?". It was already shown that anything psyker related are special rules.
11) BRBpg 68 lists the cases when psychic powers can be cumulative, anything else is against RAW -> entry for MoT declares it to be cumulative with Hammerhand (needless permission based on the BRB, but it is there anyway)
To me it is clearly RAW that
i) Psychic powers fall under special rules
ii) Same powers are not cumulative, no permission for that given
iii) Hammerhand especially breaking the rule from BRBpg 2 ensuring that it indeed is a Special Rule.
I have presented my case, I urge you to do the same rather than just pointing at pg 2 saying "+ is a +".
Naw wrote: 1) Mastery Levels are a special rule, e.g. pg24 of Codex GK
2) Psyker is a special rule, e.g. BRB pg41
3) Psykic test is a special rule, being part of Psykers subitem
"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."
Psyker is a special rule that makes the model a Psyker. Psychic tests are part of the rules for Psyker models, not the Psyker Special Rule.
Your argument has the same flawed premise as jeffersonian's.
1. It is the assault phase after assault moves but before blows are struck, my Psyker has a warp charge available and has not used used Hammerhand this turn, so I have permission to manifest Hammerhand. - "This power is used during the Assault phase in either's player turn, after assault moves have been made, but before any blows are struck."
2. I have permission to follow the usual steps for manifesting a psychic power in pages 67=68 as my Librarian is a Psyker.
3. I have permission to resolve the power according to instructions in its entry. - "Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
4. The Hammerhand entry instructs me to apply +1 Strength to the unit, so I do. - "If the psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase."
5. The unit already has had Hammerhand cast on it, so I have 2 +1 Strength modifiers, following the rules for multiple modifiers, Each model's current strength is now +2. - "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."
Naw wrote: You are conveniently ignoring my 8th point. You take the rules that support your position and ignore the rules against it.
Hammerhand entry changes the rules from page 2 -> special rule.
Might of Titan is cumulativr with Hammerhand. Nowhere is it stated that Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand. Nowhere.
So you are saying that Hammerhand is unique?
"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."(32)
Does Hammerhand make it abundantly clear that the unit that it is cast upon gains a special rule? Mo? then Hammerhand is not a Special Rule.
"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear."(32)
Naw wrote: You are conveniently ignoring my 8th point. You take the rules that support your position and ignore the rules against it.
Hammerhand entry changes the rules from page 2 -> special rule.
Might of Titan is cumulativr with Hammerhand. Nowhere is it stated that Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand. Nowhere.
So you are saying that Hammerhand is unique?
"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."(32)
Does Hammerhand make it abundantly clear that the unit that it is cast upon gains a special rule? Mo? then Hammerhand is not a Special Rule.
I am not claiming Hammerhand bestows a special rule to a unit. I am however saying that pg 2 shows the order of math and pg 32 shows that special rules break/modify basic rules, ergo Hammerhand is a special rule.
Furthermore, Might of Titans specifically states it is cumulative with Hammerhand. Hammerhand does not specify it to be cumulative with anything else. I suggest you come up with a written rule that specifically states that Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand. RAW, it isn't as I have demonstrated. RAI it isn't as has been implied. That you choose to ignore those rules makes it a house rule for you.
"similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear."(32)
Yes, that supports my stance, not yours. I have tried to make you understand that but the failure is yours.
One final time: Show me the rule that says Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand.
Does Hammerhand follow the often quoted rules in support of stacking on page 2?
I suggest you stick to RAW as the tenets dictate rather than going by your own opinion.
Yes, with the sole exception that it has explicit permission to apply its addition before multiplication, as I have proved recently on this page.
So pg 2 rule of multiplication before addition equals Hammerhand's addition before multiplication and this somehow does not contradict what page 32 says _some of the special rules_ to be.
I am glad we got this one sorted out. RAW it does not support your argument but mine. I have proven my point and step out now unless you provide a written rule saying Hammerhand being cumulative with itself. Your continuous failure to provide such evidence does not prove your point, but gives your HIWPI view on it.
Final time, RAW, Hammerhand is not given permission to be cumulative with Hammerhand.
Naw wrote: I am not claiming Hammerhand bestows a special rule to a unit. I am however saying that pg 2 shows the order of math and pg 32 shows that special rules break/modify basic rules, ergo Hammerhand is a special rule.
If everythnig that broke/modified the basic rules was a special rule every single advanced rule would be a special rule. Just because special rules break/modify basic rules doesn't mean everything that breaks/modifies basic rules is a special rule, your argument is an affirming the consequent logical fallacy.
Furthermore, Might of Titans specifically states it is cumulative with Hammerhand. Hammerhand does not specify it to be cumulative with anything else. I suggest you come up with a written rule that specifically states that Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand. RAW, it isn't as I have demonstrated. RAI it isn't as has been implied. That you choose to ignore those rules makes it a house rule for you.
This is a ridiculous argument, you can't just pick a rule and state that since it doesn't say it's cumulative it automatically isn't. regardless of any other rules.
One final time: Show me the rule that says Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand.
1. It is the assault phase after assault moves but before blows are struck, my Psyker has a warp charge available and has not used used Hammerhand this turn, so I have permission to manifest Hammerhand. - "This power is used during the Assault phase in either's player turn, after assault moves have been made, but before any blows are struck."
2. I have permission to follow the usual steps for manifesting a psychic power in pages 67=68 as my Librarian is a Psyker.
3. I have permission to resolve the power according to instructions in its entry. - "Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
4. The Hammerhand entry instructs me to apply +1 Strength to the unit, so I do. - "If the psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase."
5. The unit already has had Hammerhand cast on it, so I have 2 +1 Strength modifiers, following the rules for multiple modifiers, Each model's current strength is now +2. - "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 am not claiming Hammerhand bestows a special rule to a unit. I am however saying that pg 2 shows the order of math and pg 32 shows that special rules break/modify basic rules, ergo Hammerhand is a special rule.
Except it is not a special rule as it is not on page 32-43.
So you are saying that Hammerhand is unique?
"Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex."(Emphasis mine, 32)
No Hammerhand is not unique, so do you have any actual rules to support your position?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naw wrote: Show me the rule that says Hammerhand is cumulative with Hammerhand.
Easy:
we have permission for a IC psyker to cast and resolve hammerand on the unit he is in.
He casts Hammerhand and the unit gets a +1 Str, so 4+1 =5
we have permission for the unit to cast and resolve hammerand on thier own unit.
The unit casts Hammerhand and the unit gets a +1 Str, so 4+1+1 =6
Unless you have some sort of restriction that we overlooked...
Naw - for your claim that it is a special rule to be true, the rule "hammerhand" has to make it "abundantly clear" that it is a special rule . Please show where hammerhand does this , page and exact line.
Naw wrote: I am not claiming Hammerhand bestows a special rule to a unit. I am however saying that pg 2 shows the order of math and pg 32 shows that special rules break/modify basic rules, ergo Hammerhand is a special rule.
Just so I understand, anything that breaks or modifies basic rules is a special rule, that is your argument?
Naw wrote: I am not claiming Hammerhand bestows a special rule to a unit. I am however saying that pg 2 shows the order of math and pg 32 shows that special rules break/modify basic rules, ergo Hammerhand is a special rule.
Just so I understand, anything that breaks or modifies basic rules is a special rule, that is your argument?
That is what BRB says. Hammerhand does _not_ follow the page 2 rule as has been shown.
Also permission to cast and resolve a power does not equal permission to be cumulative, the claim for that has no basis whatsoever in the written rules. Nothing new was brought up in response to my messages, just the same faulty rules interpretetations that are not supported. It is time to move on.
Lets humour you all by discounting the special rule argument and focus on the Rules listed on pages 66-69. Lets take it step by step assuming no permission unless stated as per a permissive rule set yes? The assumption being that the Psyker USR grants permission to use these rules and these rules (on Pages66-69) grant permissions for the use of Powers using the rules listed.
The model is a psyker (as per the Psyker USR) so it has permission to have X amount of powers, use said powers with X amount of Warp charges and may only use its powers once per turn Following the rules for Manifesting a Psychic Power.
With this we intrinsically know and multiple of a power must come from two or more psykers. But at this point we have no permission for any power to be cumulative with itself or with a Different power.
Now when we look at the general rules for powers under Resolve Psychic Power it states that: Unless otherwise stayed, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative. This gives us permission for different powers to be cumulative, different being different named powers and not different castings of the same power. As we know full well a single psyker cannot manifest the same power twice in one turn. So Different must be different powers and not different casters/psykers/sources.
This is the only permission we have regarding multiple powers, only for different powers to be cumulative. We have no permission for powers that are the same, outside of their own text giving specific permission, to be cumulative with themselves.
I'm just going to copy-paste this because some people still can't get behind the concept of RAW
Sigvatr wrote: Hmmmm I just re-read the part on psychic powers and stacking and I guess I know where the "con-stacking" side has a misunderstanding. Quoting for future reference:
Now - what are "special rules"? The rulebook says that...
Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.
...and this might make people think that psychic powers are special rules. But the rulebook explicitely tells us what "special rules" are:
For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order.
...just in front of the list that contains all basic "special rules". At the same time, it says that those aren't all "special rules":
Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.
...but then says where to find them.
Unless anyone comes up with an exact quote from the BRB that says that psychic powers are special rules, every single point you try to make is a waste of time.
Bausk wrote: Lets humour you all by discounting the special rule argument and focus on the Rules listed on pages 66-69. Lets take it step by step assuming no permission unless stated as per a permissive rule set yes? The assumption being that the Psyker USR grants permission to use these rules and these rules (on Pages66-69) grant permissions for the use of Powers using the rules listed.
The model is a psyker (as per the Psyker USR) so it has permission to have X amount of powers, use said powers with X amount of Warp charges and may only use its powers once per turn Following the rules for Manifesting a Psychic Power.
With this we intrinsically know and multiple of a power must come from two or more psykers. But at this point we have no permission for any power to be cumulative with itself or with a Different power.
Now when we look at the general rules for powers under Resolve Psychic Power it states that: Unless otherwise stayed, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative. This gives us permission for different powers to be cumulative, different being different named powers and not different castings of the same power. As we know full well a single psyker cannot manifest the same power twice in one turn. So Different must be different powers and not different casters/psykers/sources.
This is the only permission we have regarding multiple powers, only for different powers to be cumulative. We have no permission for powers that are the same, outside of their own text giving specific permission, to be cumulative with themselves.
You mean apart from these rules I've already clearly laid out?
1. It is the assault phase after assault moves but before blows are struck, my Psyker has a warp charge available and has not used used Hammerhand this turn, so I have permission to manifest Hammerhand. - "This power is used during the Assault phase in either's player turn, after assault moves have been made, but before any blows are struck."
2. I have permission to follow the usual steps for manifesting a psychic power in pages 67=68 as my Librarian is a Psyker.
3. I have permission to resolve the power according to instructions in its entry. - "Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."
4. The Hammerhand entry instructs me to apply +1 Strength to the unit, so I do. - "If the psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase."
5. The unit already has had Hammerhand cast on it, so I have 2 +1 Strength modifiers, following the rules for multiple modifiers, Each model's current strength is now +2. - "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."
Sigvatr wrote: Unless anyone comes up with an exact quote from the BRB that says that psychic powers are special rules, every single point you try to make is a waste of time.
So every model in the game can use psychic powers ?
