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.

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.

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.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

This response is fallacious, Permissions to do the thing are cited within the quoted post; your response is "where are your permissions?" Permissions are shown and you are not supplying Specific denials to that argument.

In which case I apologise please point to the citation for the sane power to resolve cumulatively because I missed it. Page and para would be enough.

You need to show a rule that restricts this, or all of these rules apply.

We have permission to apply the +1 modifier from each casting on page 67 "If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved"

So we know we can target a unit, take a psychic test, and if passed resolve its effects. We are also permitted to cast hammerhand again on the same target...

Right there is the citation.

No, you have shown permission to apply their effects. Unless those effects are cumulative it will only apply the modifier one time.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And modifiers are cumulative, unless told otherwise. We are told the effect is a modifier, no further pernmission is needed.

However, nothing will change in this thread to the last one, as the permission is shown over and over and over, yet this mysterious additional permission, written nowhere in any rules, and created out of thin air, is created to show that an additional step is needed.

4+1+1 = 6, as you ar told on page 2. Deny this permission, or concede.

I again hesitate to speak directly about hammerhand as I lack the proper dex so if your going to continue asking me about that power in particular I'll need to know what it says exactly. The BRB does imply that some powers are permitted to stack. On that note, it may be better to discuss generalities about maledictions/blessing using a non-codex specific power with no special permissions.... like Enfeeble

Would that be an acceptable shift for you nos?

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

This one took us a while but it can be pieced together from different parts of the book.

"A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn" Pg 67, BRB- Manifesting Psychic Powers, second paragraph.
From this we can determine that different casting of the same power are the same.

"It should be noted that different Psykers in the same army can have the same psychic power(s)." Pg 418, BRB- right side, end of the second paragraph.
From this we can determine that powers of the same name possessed by different Psykers are the same.

This narrows down the options for powers to be 'different' down to powers with different names.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Guys, why are we arguing whether or not we have specific permission to resolve Enfeeble on an already Enfeeble'd unit when I can't even find specific permission to resolve it on a model with two arms and two legs?

I just have lots of down time at my job and I'm board at work right now

grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

as we already have rules that state the accumulation

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

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

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

grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Maths. And the fact that the game uses it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

How many Enfeeble effects can exist on a unit?

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

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

Again, general allowance to cast and resolve covers this.

Actually it does not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

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

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

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

No, it really doesn't.

Can add more effect ≠ the effect is cumulative

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

That has nothing to do with what i just said.

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

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

4+1+1=6. Done

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

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

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

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

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.

You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.

Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.

So you're saying there are two Enfeebles in effect on the unit. How can that be without permission for those two 'Enfeebles in effect' to be cumulative? It cannot. Therefore no additional modifier is applied based off of a second Enfeeble.

Abandon wrote:

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

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

4+1+1=6. Done

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

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

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

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

As no response has been forthcoming for three pages I assume this is agreed upon without question.

So based on the rules for maledictions as well as the powers description, it is set in motion as:
1. Enfeeble is used and resolved
2. Enfeeble comes into effect(on the target)
3. While the effect from step two is in effect, modifiers and an SR are applied to the target.

You must then prove the second step is cumulative before the third step will be of any consequence in that regard. So far I only see proof that modifiers stack, not Enfeebles.

The book states what is cumulative, like wounds. They also state what is Rapid Fire. Are you saying we can count things as being something they are not stated to be?

A power could always come out and say it is cumulative with itself either directly or indirectly. So of course it's going to depend on what the power says. I'm not saying there is a general restriction. I'm saying their is no general permission. So if a power is worded so as to be cumulative, then that's what it is. If not, then not.

If Enfeeble had said 'the target unit suffers a -1T and -1S until the start of your next turn. While this power is in effect it treats all terrain as difficult terrain.' then would have to agree with nos, rigeld, and DR. The modifiers in that case would be separate form the power being 'in effect' and their would be little room to argue as the rules for modifiers are quite clear. That is not the wording they used though.

Even with several individual instances of Enfeeble 'in effect', since they are not stated to be or worded to be cumulative, the most that can be counted to be on the unit is one. As either a specific or general(however you want to look at it) instance of the power being in effect creates adds its modifiers only once and in neither case are they cumulative, there can be only one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the effect is -1T, not "enfeeble". You're failing to resolve according to the instructions, and are doing so without cause

Jeffersonian - back on ignore, as you still continue to resort to personal attacks, after your argument was rebutted. Your hand waving ability is impressive - every time you're proven wrong, you ignore it, and attack others, hoping we will somehow miss your failure to rebut.

"Whilst the power is in effect..."
So these words mean nothing to you? Why are you ignoring text? The result of the a successful use of the power is that the power is in effect on the unit. This makes the question of 'how many times can it be in effect on a unit?' very relevant. Unless of course your just going to continue to ignore that line and repeat the 'the effect is a modifier' over and over. In which case it won't matter to you at all but neither will the rules in that case.

"Whilst the power is in effect the target unit suffers a -1 penalty to both Strength and Toughness..."

This is a cause and effect relationship here between the power being 'in effect' and the modifiers. By definition, if the cause(power in effect) is not cumulative, it's effects cannot be increased in either quantity, volume or force(no additional modifiers) by adding more of the cause(power in effect). Therefore it does not matter if modifiers are cumulative as there can be no additional modifiers if the 'Enfeebles in effect' are not cumulative.

PrinceRaven wrote:I thought we were arguing about Hammerhand, it doesn't have the "Whilst the power is in effect" wording. Plus the wording is ambiguous, it is possible that "the power" refers to that manifestation of Enfeeble rather than Enfeeble in and of itself. In that interpretation of Enfeeble it would be allowed to stack because you would have multiple powers in effect.

I commented when the subject seemed to stray to general use of psychic powers. I do not know the specific wording of Hammerhand so I have refrained from comment on that power in particular.

kambien wrote:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolve

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

This is true. By definition, to resolve something is to make a final determination regarding it. But in this case you "resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry." Which means the powers entry is the basis for any determinations you will make. By extension this includes the rules for the powers type, shooting rules in the case of witchfires and everything else that may apply. Basically, resolve it according to the rules which are of course what is in dispute.

 DeathReaper wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:


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

.

is not the definition of resolve

It really is...

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

This is not correct either. You cannot modify the strength or toughness on a vehicle for example. resolve does not mean 'immediately apply all end effects'.

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

Just got my hands on the power entry for Hammerhand, noticed an amendment indicating that it happens at the start of the fight subphase after a glance over the GK FAQ... is there any other material regarding this power?

If not I'd have to say Hammerhand does not stack... but it does not have to. Hammerhand happens instantly, you use the power, make your psychic test and then it's over. It does not linger for any duration like a blessing or a malediction. If that test is made they get +1S and that is the only lasting part of the whole chain of cause and effect. So yeah, you can't even try to stack Hammerhand, only the modifiers it creates stick around for any duration, and those definitely stack.

Saying you're stacking Hammerhands is like saying you're stacking Smites... well the modifiers/wounds add up... but the powers never directly overlap so you can't ever really say that happens.

...but if it helps people think of it more easily... sure, you can say they stack.... it's not 100% correct but it's close enough.

Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that.

My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that.

My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.

So you are in agreement that Psychic powers can stack?

What about Terrify, if you cast Terrify from two different psykers how many Morale checks must the unit take? (A: should be two)

Or Gate of Infinity, can two psykers both cast GoI when attached to a single unit? (A: should be Yes)

Yes to both as neither the moral check from terrify nor the DS from GOI is contingent upon the power being sustained on the unit. Those are one time effects and occur once per successful use of the power, there is no need for them to be cumulative.

How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)

Well Fire shield is a blessing, so it lasts as long as any other blessing til the end of the following turn.

The 4+ cover save has no self determined expiration time and is stated outside of the 'while this power is in effect' wording. Fire Shield is not in itself a cover save. It grants a cover save to the unit, by all appearance, permanently. There is nothing stating that when the Fire Shield wears off, the 4+ cover save goes away. The other effect of the power however is contingent upon Fire Shield being 'in effect' and so expires along with it.

So I ask, why do you thing the cover save is limited to 'while the power is in effect'?

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.

Since wounds and hull points modify the units profile explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.

So you're saying that the benefits and drawbacks from maledictions and blessings are dependent on the power being 'active' on the unit even if the effect does not say 'while this power is in effect'?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
If the blessing is not there you can not reference the rule, so whilst you may keep the 4+ "by all appearance, permanently" you have no blessing in effect to reference and as such can not use the 4+ if indeed you keep it "by all appearance, permanently".

Well it's right there in the book if you need to look at it again but why would you need a reference? Do you require a reference for wounds or hull points lost? If a rule says target unit gains X with out listing a duration or time limit then there is no reason to believe there is any such limit.

Since wounds and hull points modify the units profile explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.

So you're saying that the benefits and drawbacks from maledictions and blessings are dependent on the power being 'active' on the unit even if the effect does not say 'while this power is in effect'?

Yes.

So the chain of events goes:

successful use of the power>power becomes active on the target>effects of power are applied to the target

One event triggering the next, correct?

rigeld2 wrote:
No.
Successful use of the power>Follow instructions in the powers entry.

Since that's what the rules say.

Well as Fire Shield says the target unit gets a cover save and does not state a time limit for it. Following the instructions in its entry then gives the unit a permanent 4+ cover save. It lists no 'power being active' requirement for the save to be maintained.

Either its effects require the power to be active or they do not. As you have essentially stated both I'm going to have to quote Insanik and tell you 'you can't have it both ways'.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No.
Successful use of the power>Follow instructions in the powers entry.

Since that's what the rules say.

Well as Fire Shield says the target unit gets a cover save and does not state a time limit for it. Following the instructions in its entry then gives the unit a permanent 4+ cover save. It lists no 'power being active' requirement for the save to be maintained.

Either its effects require the power to be active or they do not. As you have essentially stated both I'm going to have to quote Insanik and tell you 'you can't have it both ways'.

Actually, I can.
The cover save is part of resolving the power, correct?
Which means that when the power lapses you no longer have permission to use the cover save.
It's almost like you're making things up to try and make a point.

Lines 1-4
1. Really? Does not seem so to me. You've imposed an arbitrary requirement for the power to essentially be 'in effect' for any effect of that power to be maintained dispute the fact that half the effects of this power are stated outside of any such need. I was going to inquire where such a need was spoken of but then you restated things as if that requirement did not exist.
2. The cover save is to be granted to the target as per the description of the power, yes.
3. Citation required. The 'instructions' to not state this.
4. Really? I'm mostly trying to ascertain your stance on the topic and my questions are based on your own assertions. You are the one who stated the power needs to be 'active' on the target for it effects to be maintained. If you would care to explain the nature of the relationship between the power being 'active' and the stated effects of the power in its entry I could stop guessing and having to puzzle together what you mean. Also where in the book this power being 'active' requirement is stated would be most helpful.

rigeld2 wrote:
Permissive rule set.
We know that the cover save does not occur without resolving the power.
We know that the power has a set duration.
Please cite permission to use the cover save without the power being manifested.

The power is manifested and resolved at the start of your turn.
The power itself is stated to last for a duration.
When the power is resolved the target receives the cover save.
While the power is still in effect units charging the target unit suffer hits as described.

You claim the power is used and resolved and then you immediately follow the instructions in its entry. I see a limit to the duration of the second effect of the power. What words in its entry limit the duration of the save?

You have stated the power must be 'active' on the target for it's effects to be maintained. What is the relationship between use of the power, the power being active, and the effects of the power?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Permissive rule set.
We know that the cover save does not occur without resolving the power.
We know that the power has a set duration.
Please cite permission to use the cover save without the power being manifested.

The power is manifested and resolved at the start of your turn.
The power itself is stated to last for a duration.
When the power is resolved the target receives the cover save.
While the power is still in effect units charging the target unit suffer hits as described.

You claim the power is used and resolved and then you immediately follow the instructions in its entry. I see a limit to the duration of the second effect of the power. What words in its entry limit the duration of the save?

You have stated the power must be 'active' on the target for it's effects to be maintained. What is the relationship between use of the power, the power being active, and the effects of the power?

You're asserting permission to use the power outside if its stated duration.
I'm sure you cited such permission and aren't engaging in a dishonest Q&A. Mind linking where you cited it?
The fact that you have no permission to reference the power after the duration is over proves my point.

I believe we can agree that we are allowed to use available cover saves.
I believe we can agree that Fire Shield grants the target a cover save and permission to use it does not specifically need to be given.
I see no limitation on the duration of the cover save equates to permission to use that cover save for the rest of the game.
As far as use of the power, I only find permission for that at the start of the psykers turn at which time it is manifest and resolved.
The power, as a blessing, is stated to last until the start of the psykers next turn.
I am genuinely attempting to determine the nature of the relationship you place between the power being in effect and the specific effects listed in the powers description.
We may or may not agree on some or all points but without a detailed understanding of the others point of view, constructive debate is not likely to occur.

From what I've gathered so far you claim is either:
1.
-The power is used and resolved
-At that time the power becomes an active effect or 'in effect' on the unit.
-While that effect is active the target is effected as described in the powers entry.

-or-

2.
-The power is used and resolved
-The target is then effected as described in the powers entry.

In either case the power has a limited duration but in case number 2 that duration does not necessarily limit the duration on the effects of that power (the cause is not the effect). In case number 1 there is a mechanic to limit the time of all effects of the power by default but this requires an additional effect that you and nos have always accused me of fabricating. If neither describes you view please explain how you believe the mechanics interact.

rigeld2 wrote:
Number 2 is closest to accurate but you're incorrect when you say that the duration of the power does it limit the cover save. There's literally no basis for that statement in a permissive rule set.

How do you feel the mechanic of the power being 'in effect' works then? This is stated in Fire Shield as well as many of the other blessing and maledictions as the direct cause of some or all of their effects. As the general description of those powers indicates they stay active in some fashion for a limited duration how would you say that is represented in the mechanics of the power? Is there a way you could rephrase #2 that would be accurate to your point of view?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Number 2 is closest to accurate but you're incorrect when you say that the duration of the power does it limit the cover save. There's literally no basis for that statement in a permissive rule set.

How do you feel the mechanic of the power being 'in effect' works then? This is stated in Fire Shield as well as many of the other blessing and maledictions as the direct cause of some or all of their effects. As the general description of those powers indicates they stay active in some fashion for a limited duration how would you say that is represented in the mechanics of the power? Is there a way you could rephrase #2 that would be accurate to your point of view?

The mechanics of the power don't have to represent the limited duration - the Maledictions/blessing rules do.
You're reaching for something that isn't there.

So you disagree with logic and state that the cause is the effect? Fire Shield is a power and effects the target by giving it a cover save. The time limit on the power is not a limitation on its effects unless it is noted as such.

The problem I see with disassociating the power being 'in effect' from the stated effects of the ability is that it also relieves any need for the power to be actively effecting the target for the stated effects to be maintained. Sure the power is stated to last for a duration but if the end effects are not tied to the power being 'in effect' they are not limited by that duration and are free to continue operating independently.

Take Hammer hand for example. It is not a blessing or a malediction and has no stated duration for the power itself. It is used and resolved and ends immediately as it has no permission to last for any length of time. It's effect however is permitted to last until the end of the assault phase and is not stated as being dependent on the power remaining in effect. So though the power ends immediately the modifier lasts for it's own stated length of time. If no time limit had been set for it, the modifier would be permanent.

I'll wait til you actually address my points