Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

would powers like hammer hand stack if cast by both a squad and an IC that has joined it? also how long do these spells last? is it still there next assault phase when I cast it again?

i do believe it does not stack. I was pretty sure it said that in the dex. it lasts till the begining of your next turn, which includes your opponents assult phase.

Using the rules for multiple modifiers, hammerhand stacks

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

gearheart99 wrote:
would powers like hammer hand stack if cast by both a squad and an IC that has joined it?

Hammer Hand, yes. Other powers, maybe, the rules are really poorly written and could go one way or the other.

also how long do these spells last? is it still there next assault phase when I cast it again?

Most Blessings last for 1 game turn, the description of the power should tell you how long it lasts.

In the case of HH, how it works is clearly laid out on p25 of Codex: GK. Be sure to read the errata, as they've updated the wording for 6e.

"bonus's and penalties from different blessing are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1"

Why don't things stack?

The confusion lies in what you count as "different". Are two castings of a particular blessing from different psykers different because they're different castings, or the same because they're the same blessing?

Here's the last thread on it, which you'll notice eventually got locked after no solid conclusion was reached for either side:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/553624.page

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

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

Becase if different is different named powers, and by all indication it is, then powers of the same name do not stack when cast from two psykers unless it has express permission to be cumulative in the powers rule. Hammerhand being a 5th ed power that is not errata 'd to be a blessing is not a blessing however so it uses its own rules from its dex with the faq.

 Bausk wrote:
Becase if different is different named powers, and by all indication it is, then powers of the same name do not stack when cast from two psykers unless it has express permission to be cumulative in the powers rule.

Citation needed.

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) does not mean the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative.

Is there something saying that the same powers do not stack?

Because Page 2 says that, like basic math, 4+1+1=6

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Becase if different is different named powers, and by all indication it is, then powers of the same name do not stack when cast from two psykers unless it has express permission to be cumulative in the powers rule.

Citation needed.

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) does not mean the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative.

Is there something saying that the same powers do not stack?

Because Page 2 says that, like basic math, 4+1+1=6

This. Use the rules as we have them and they stack IMHO.

I will just point out that page two is not the dispute, the many examples of intent of what different for blessings/maledictions indicates the lack of default cumulation of the power before multiple modifiers are considered.

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

And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)

There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)

There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.

Probably because there are literally no rules that say the same psychic powers do stack. Permissive ruleset your side of the argument have never shown permission for powers to stack.

Most 6th Ed powers definitely don't stack because they contain verbiage that prevents stacking. Hammerhand only stacks if you can prove you have multiple modifiers from multiple castings by proving that the same power cast on the same unit multiple times is resolved cumulatively.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)

There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.

Probably because there are literally no rules that say the same psychic powers do stack. Permissive ruleset your side of the argument have never shown permission for powers to stack.

Except, you know, page 2 which proves that 4+1+1=6 or 4-1-1=2...

Most 6th Ed powers definitely don't stack because they contain verbiage that prevents stacking. Hammerhand only stacks if you can prove you have multiple modifiers from multiple castings by proving that the same power cast on the same unit multiple times is resolved cumulatively.

You do have multiple modifiers, each casting of Hammerhand gives +1 Str. 4+1+1 = 6 according to the BRB.

Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.

Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.

I think you're reading the wrong book. In my rulebook page 2 makes no mention of psychic powers stacking. Just modifiers. So do you have any actual rules to support stacking or are you still clinging to the "it doesn't say I can't" argument?

Oh, this again! Now we can all pretend that we have not done this two or three times already, and repeat all the arguments again!

Here's mine: most powers say something like 'whilst this power is in effect* [modifiers and/or special rules happen.]' The condition is the power being in effect, and if this refers to the power in general, instead of an individual casting of it, it would mean that further castings would not make the power being any more in effect. Either the power is in effect, or it isn't, number of castings doesn't matter.

* (Hammerhand doesn't, so it might actually be meant to stack.)

 FlingitNow wrote:

Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.

I think you're reading the wrong book. In my rulebook page 2 makes no mention of psychic powers stacking. Just modifiers. So do you have any actual rules to support stacking or are you still clinging to the "it doesn't say I can't" argument?

Ahh but we do have permission. So it actually says we can stack them.

We have permission to cast Hammerhand on a unit from the brotherhood of psykers that is the unit itself. (This gives them a +1 Strength)

We also have permission to cast hammerhand from an IC that has joined the unit on the unit. (This gives them a +1 Strength)

Now we look at page 2 for guidance on what to do when we have +1 and +1, it says that we add them together, so Str4+1+1 does in fact = 6

And then someone says possibilities of applying multiple instances of the same effects still requires permission for that effect to be considered cumulative to be able to use the modifier rules, then someone else comes back and says that is not needed, then someone else chimes in with something completely irrelevant which no one answers - before we get back to going around this very familiar roundabout which draws no conclusion.

Personally I'm nominating 'same psychic powers stacking?' for most awaited FAQ just to end the suffering, I mean, don't faq everything before we have a good while to debate it but this one really has gotten old. Direct the poster OP to a previous thread, note it's unresolved and let people make up their own minds (ok sure Hammerhand is a deffinate, probably is good to mention that). I don't think there's been anything new on the last few 15 page threads on the subject

Again, hanmerhand is not a blessing. It's. a fith ed power with specific permission in its codex to stack, further backed by the grey knight faq i believe. Older powers are not bound by the 6th ed restrictions unless errata'd or faq'd to be a sub type.

And again page two is not in dispute, multiple modifiers are fine and dandy but they do notcome into the discussion unless the power has permission to stack. In the previous thread there are cited references of some powers having specific permission in thier rules while others do not. This coupled with the only logical interpretation of what different powers means clearly indicates that powers of the same name do not stack unless they have express permission in thier rules.

 Bausk wrote:
Again, hanmerhand is not a blessing. It's. a fith ed power with specific permission in its codex to stack,

No, there is no explicit permission in the codex that says hammerhand stacks with hammerhand.

further backed by the grey knight faq i believe. Older powers are not bound by the 6th ed restrictions unless errata'd or faq'd to be a sub type.

And again page two is not in dispute, multiple modifiers are fine and dandy but they do notcome into the discussion unless the power has permission to stack. In the previous thread there are cited references of some powers having specific permission in thier rules while others do not. This coupled with the only logical interpretation of what different powers means clearly indicates that powers of the same name do not stack unless they have express permission in thier rules.

Well we have permission to cast the same power twice on a single target, therefore page 2 does actually come into the discussion.

yeah its getting real old to see people apply the modifiers rule, without having permision to use it.
round and round it goes


make sure you all are ACTUALLY emailing the GW faq,

and adding something to the effect of

GW loses a lot of business to people who quit because of rules arguments. answering 5 questions a month is a cost effective way to placate and retain customers. I find it LAZY that there is not a team dedicated to officially updating the faqs on a regular basis, to the degree that they need to be.

Ah that's right, might of titans has he mention of cumulative effects. No matter, still not a Blessing so is not bound by the restriction of blessings.

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

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

It is the nature of a permissive rule set. They state some things as being cumulative such as 'different psychic powers'. The logical conclusion being things they do not state as being that way, are not cumulative. Just as, only the weapons of the Rapid Fire type are Rapid Fire Weapons. If they do not say it is X, then it is not X.

DeathReaper wrote:

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

And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)

There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.

Denial is not needed where no permission is given.

DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)

There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.

Probably because there are literally no rules that say the same psychic powers do stack. Permissive ruleset your side of the argument have never shown permission for powers to stack.

Except, you know, page 2 which proves that 4+1+1=6 or 4-1-1=2...

Most 6th Ed powers definitely don't stack because they contain verbiage that prevents stacking. Hammerhand only stacks if you can prove you have multiple modifiers from multiple castings by proving that the same power cast on the same unit multiple times is resolved cumulatively.

You do have multiple modifiers, each casting of Hammerhand gives +1 Str. 4+1+1 = 6 according to the BRB.

Why wouldn't the powers cast be resolved cumulatively? page 2 says they should.

Without permission to be cumulative the effect will not increase by any successive additions. Page 2 is irrelevant as it only allows modifiers to stack. First prove the powers effects stack, then we can use page 2 to handle the additional modifiers that are caused by those effects.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
Again, hanmerhand is not a blessing. It's. a fith ed power with specific permission in its codex to stack,

No, there is no explicit permission in the codex that says hammerhand stacks with hammerhand.

further backed by the grey knight faq i believe. Older powers are not bound by the 6th ed restrictions unless errata'd or faq'd to be a sub type.

And again page two is not in dispute, multiple modifiers are fine and dandy but they do notcome into the discussion unless the power has permission to stack. In the previous thread there are cited references of some powers having specific permission in thier rules while others do not. This coupled with the only logical interpretation of what different powers means clearly indicates that powers of the same name do not stack unless they have express permission in thier rules.

Well we have permission to cast the same power twice on a single target, therefore page 2 does actually come into the discussion.

Permission to use and resolve the power twice ≠ they are cumulative
Modifiers stack ≠ 'Same' powers stack

Then you say 'yes it does' and then proceed to not prove as much because... those points literally have nothing to do with each other.
Then you say 'but you have to resolve the power as it is described' which is correct.
Then you say 'so they both resolve and have their effect' which is also correct.
Then, 'so they stack', which is incorrect... literally having nothing to do with the previous two points.

Remember, if you cause any additional modifier with a second use you are already treating the effects cumulatively.

Cumulative = "increasing or increased in quantity, degree, or force by successive additions" -Oxford Dictionary

You cannot increase the quantity, degree of force of the powers effects on the unit by successive additions of the same power. That means no additional modifiers.

Note: Hammerhand if i recall is a special case and does have permission to be cumulative but in general, as far as standard blessing/maledictions, that is not the norm.

Here ends my summation of several previous threads and the exchange between DR and myself contained therein.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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

And they all failed to say that (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative)

There are literally zero rules that state (the effects of multiple of the same psychic power is not cumulative) yet people think they still do not stack for some reason.

Denial is not needed where no permission is given.

Well it is a good thing we have permission to cast hammerhand twice on the same unit, once from the unit itself and once from the IC librarian attached to the unit...

Now find the restriction.

Permission to use and resolve the power twice ≠ they are cumulative
Modifiers stack ≠ 'Same' powers stack

Then you say 'yes it does' and then proceed to not prove as much because... those points literally have nothing to do with each other.
Then you say 'but you have to resolve the power as it is described' which is correct.
Then you say 'so they both resolve and have their effect' which is also correct.
Then, 'so they stack', which is incorrect... literally having nothing to do with the previous two points.

(Emphasis mine)

If both the underlined is agreed with, I do not see how you can think they do not stack. We "have to resolve the power as it is described' which is correct." and "'so they both resolve and have their effect' which is also correct." their effect is a +1 Strength.

We have permission to cast and resolve hammerhand twice on the same unit, these both grant a +1 modifier, as per Page 2 they stack, unless there is a restriction...

Because the ability to add more 'effect' does not mean the effect has the 'cumulative' quality that allows things to 'add up' or 'stack' as the world of gamers might call it.

Essentially, the ability to add more of X does not say anything about the results of adding more X.

IE, the desired effect of this statement(power), which is to convey information to (effect) the reader(target), is not cumulative. That means, though I can say it many times and it will have it's effect each time, I will never convey any additional information with it through successive uses on the same individual. Knowledge(modifiers) does act cumulatively(per page 2 ) and knowledge can be gained from information(effects), the information(effect) in this statement does not so no additional information(effect) is communicated(applied) to the reader(target). However, I will try anyways just to prove a point.

IE, the desired effect of this statement(power), which is to convey information to (effect) the reader(target), is not cumulative. That means, though I can say it many times and it will have it's effect each time, I will never convey any additional information with it through successive uses on the same individual. Knowledge(modifiers) does act cumulatively(per page 2 ) and knowledge can be gained from information(effects), the information(effect) in this statement does not so no additional information(effect) is communicated(applied) to the reader(target). However, I will try anyways just to prove a point.

IE, the desired effect of this statement(power), which is to convey information to (effect) the reader(target), is not cumulative. That means, though I can say it many times and it will have it's effect each time, I will never convey any additional information with it through successive uses on the same individual. Knowledge(modifiers) does act cumulatively(per page 2 ) and knowledge can be gained from information(effects), the information(effect) in this statement does not so no additional information(effect) is communicated(applied) to the reader(target). However, I will try anyways just to prove a point.

Now we look at page 2 for guidance on what to do when we have +1 and +1

You've missed the permission for two casting of the same power to be resolved cumulatively until you have that you don't have +1 and +1 so page 2 is irrelevant. So again with the circular argument... Now either cite the rules that state that the same power is resolved cumulatively or concede.

Well it is a good thing we have permission to cast hammerhand twice on the same unit, once from the unit itself and once from the IC librarian attached to the unit...

Now find the restriction.

Permission to cast twice is not permission to resolve cumulatively. Give that permission. Rather than relying on the assumption that the power is cumulative to prove the power is cumulative. How can you not see that is a logical fallacy?

Guys, we've already done this, we already know that no one side will be able to convince the other 2. Why are you even bothering?