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.

Blaktoof - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers do not stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.

Prove the written rules fully permit it, or retract your lie.

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.

actually the RAW fully permit different psychic powers to stack, not the same. That's how writing works. What is written as being permissive is permissive. What is not written, is not permissive, because its not written. If the written rules fully permitted it they would say "multiple uses of the same psychic power are cumulative". or anything to that effect.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.

Prove the written rules fully permit it, or retract your lie.

SJ

Reported for trolling. Back on ignore - foolish me for hoping for maturity,

blaktoof:

I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.

I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.

I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.

Why are you not allowing me to resolve the power?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality

las guns do not cause wounds , having been assigned a wounding hit with no save or failing your save is the only way to put wounds on (excluding special rules). I don't know about DE rules , perhaps you would like to fully quote the relevant rules for them ?

Blaktoof, - so when you go to resolve the second modifier, as per page two, why do you jump in and deny the permission? Page and graph.

Your argument against general permission means you agree you cannot deploy models in a ruin, on the second floor, where the ruin is facing your long table edge. Because there are no explicit statements to that effect.

The fact there doesn't need to be is what allows same powers to stack in effect

Still waiting for you to prove your assertion - that the rule book PLAINLY STATES that same powers cannot stack - have you proven it yet? Found the quote? Or will you retract it and apologise for lying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality

las guns do not cause wounds , having been assigned a wounding hit with no save or failing your save is the only way to put wounds on (excluding special rules). I don't know about DE rules , perhaps you would like to fully quote the relevant rules for them ?

Power through pain. Look it up, not hard to find.

Las guns DO cause wounds. Without the model having a las gun to fire, it could not roll to hit, if hit then to wound, and so on. The initial cause of the wound is the las gun.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality

las guns do not cause wounds , having been assigned a wounding hit with no save or failing your save is the only way to put wounds on (excluding special rules). I don't know about DE rules , perhaps you would like to fully quote the relevant rules for them ?

Power through pain. Look it up, not hard to find.

Las guns DO cause wounds. Without the model having a las gun to fire, it could not roll to hit, if hit then to wound, and so on. The initial cause of the wound is the las gun.

see your totally off base
Units select targets
Models make attacks ( modified by weapon profile)
successful attacks become hits
Hits ( modified by STR vs Toughness ) cause wounds
Wounds can be negated through cover save / armor save / invul save
failed saving throws and wounding hits with no saving throws cause wounds

unless your trying to go the long about way of saying your army causes wounds
So again , las guns do not cause wounds

Las guns :
1 Determine range
2. Determine number of attacks
3. Determine the strength of the attack


Oh and still waiting for the actual rules quote on your DE thing or are you still making a stand against the tenets of the forum ?

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof:

I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.

I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.

I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.

Why are you not allowing me to resolve the power?

What is the full rules text of this imagined psychic power that only grants a +1 weapon skill? That must be a awesome power to grant you a +1 WS for the rest of the game.

How about we use actual psychic powers, and cite the source for these powers. If you have to go about inventing powers you should realize you don't have RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.

Prove the written rules fully permit it, or retract your lie.

SJ

Reported for trolling. Back on ignore - foolish me for hoping for maturity,

I accept your refusal to prove your point as a concession that your point unprovable.

SJ

Since people are going on the premise of the math works so stacking is allowed, until specific rules stop it, then:

If I have 3 waaagh banners in my Nobz unit, then their weapon skill is 7. because 4+1+1+1=7.

Wargear is clearly not a special rule so is never even hinted at not being allowed to be cumulative. It even has permission to modify characteristics.

I think I'd have to go with 5 banners though so most units will need 5s to hit them in CC.

Happyjew, anything said in this argument on either side will be insulted, argued against, taken out of context, or blatantly ignored. Why bother joining the fray when nothing good will come of it?

Waaaghpower wrote:
Happyjew, anything said in this argument on either side will be insulted, argued against, taken out of context, or blatantly ignored. Why bother joining the fray when nothing good will come of it?

When I asked Blaktoof a question, I was hoping he could answer it with an actual rule. sirlynchmob decided it would be better to ask about where this supposed psychic power came from instead of answering. You posted what was supposed to be a gif, however due to an error, it just ended up as a pic saying to check out some site. As such I thought it was spam and asked about it.

 Happyjew wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
Happyjew, anything said in this argument on either side will be insulted, argued against, taken out of context, or blatantly ignored. Why bother joining the fray when nothing good will come of it?

When I asked Blaktoof a question, I was hoping he could answer it with an actual rule. sirlynchmob decided it would be better to ask about where this supposed psychic power came from instead of answering. You posted what was supposed to be a gif, however due to an error, it just ended up as a pic saying to check out some site. As such I thought it was spam and asked about it.

In all fairness though, I need more information before I can answer the question. Cite the entire rule or tell me where to find it, and I'll answer it.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Prove the written rules fully permit it, or retract your lie.

"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."

sirlynchmob wrote:
Since people are going on the premise of the math works so stacking is allowed, until specific rules stop it, then:

If I have 3 waaagh banners in my Nobz unit, then their weapon skill is 7. because 4+1+1+1=7.

Wargear is clearly not a special rule so is never even hinted at not being allowed to be cumulative. It even has permission to modify characteristics.

I think I'd have to go with 5 banners though so most units will need 5s to hit them in CC.

Wargear is covered on pg. 32 as falling under Special Rules, just like Psychic Powers and Terrain.

SJ

Due to the way Waaagh! Banners are worded, it is impossible to gain their effects more than once:

"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 Strength"

A unit has 3 Waaagh! Banners, does the unit include a Waaagh! Banner? Yes, so it gets +1 Strength.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - you stated, as a fact, that the rule book PLAINLY states that same powers DO stack.

You have been asked to provide citation for that assertion, as required in the tenets of this forum.

Stop being disingenuous here - either provide the citation (we all know you cannot) OR admit you lied.

SJ

Prove it. I never stated the book plainly stated they stack, just the written rules fully permit it. Retract your lie.

Prove the written rules fully permit it, or retract your lie.

SJ

HJ says it all...

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof:

I have a unit with an attached IC. They can both cast psychic powers.

I declare that the unit is casting a psychic power.
The unit spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The unit takes a psychic test and rolls a 5.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.

I declare the IC is casting a a psychic power.
The IC spends a Warp Charge.
The psychic power targets the unit.
The IC takes a psychic test and rolls an 8.
Since the power is not targeting an enemy unit there is no Deny the Witch.
I resolve the power. The power says the unit has +1 Weapon Skill.

Why are you not allowing me to resolve the power?

Proof that you are allowed to cast and resolve hammerhand twice resulting in the usage of page 2 multiple modifiers.

Now, as nos asked, please retract your lie.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

The rules for wounds makes it clear. That you are arguing this only shows that you are not interested in any sort of progress, only winning a debate.

"Finally, total up the number of Wounds you have caused..." page 14, BRB

You don't 'total up' things that are not cumulative. I understand that cumulative vs non-cumulative may be difficult for some to grasp but after repeating this concept several times I'd hoped you have a handle on it by now. Read the whole Wound section and it makes it clear they are treated in a cumulative nature.

PrinceRaven wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.

You use it twice and resolve it twice. If they are not cumulative, how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit? Remember any addition to force or quantity by adding more is treating it cumulatively.

There lies the assumption. You cannot have more than one if it's not cumulative. Non-cumulatively you can use it and resolve it all you want and the number will not change.

Hammerhand is not "in effect" on the unit, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength. Then I cast Hammerhand again, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength.

Blessings and maledictions are stated to last until the end of the following turn. As that is the case whether it is stated or not they are in some way in effect for that time. I do wish they would better define that part better but given what we have to work with it is the best way to describe a powers lingering effect.

Is it a Blessing? Does it have it's own unique way of being implamented? If so, why is it being used as a focal point for this discussion?

PrinceRaven wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You gain +1 strength on the model for each Hammerhand cast until it is at strength 10. Nice try though.

That is not stated as far as I know for this power nor has the proper wording to reflect this been shown.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.

So -1W is cumulative, but +1S isnt?

Nice try though..

First, I never stated modifiers are not cumulative. Stop with the Red Herring and tell me how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit.

Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power.

As you seem to attach no particular 'power in effect' or power being 'active' or anything like that to the indicated effects of the power itself without a statement directing you to do so let me ask you one question. How long does the cover save from Fire Shield last? It is stated separately from any 'while this power is in effect' wording and has no specified duration. Without being attached to any 'active' or 'in effect' power it will last the rest of the game.

Some association with the power being in effect on a target and the stated effects of said power or things start to break down.

PrinceRaven wrote:I, for one, do not have enough faith in the writers' abilities to say that any misleading they do is intentional.

The no stacking side has made a number of assumptions, including:
- Psychic powers are special rules
- Different powers stacking means multiple iterations of the same power don't rather than some powers are cumulative and some aren't
- Everything is inherently non-cumulative despite only the special rules section stating this to be the case
- Every other rule that would be affected by treating all rules as non-cumulative is exempt from this ruling
- The multiple modifiers rule only applies when the modifiers come from different sources
- In "Whilst the power is in effect" powers, "the power" does not refer to that manifestation of the power, but the power in and of itself (granted, those who insist that these powers definitely stack make the reversed assumption)
- Other powers that don't have this wording are still treated as if they do

I have not assumed any of these things. The BRB states when things are handled cumulatively either directly or indirectly. I simply find no permission to handle everything else cumulatively aside from when the book says to do so.

The stacking side has generally claimed an indirect cumulative nature to same powers by bypassing the the powers active status and moving straight from casting to modifiers. All blessings and maledictions are sustained for a duration and (specific powers aside) their effects are based on that power effecting the target for that duration.

PrinceRaven wrote:They can quote rules from the psychic powers section to support different rules stacking, I've yet to see one that support same powers not stacking.

As far as rules quotes, how's this?
"Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry."

"If the psychic test is pass, all models in the unit (including Independent Character) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase."

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

If the unit does not gain +2 strength for having both Hammerhands cast on it, both the resolving psychic powers and multiple modifiers rules are being broken.
I have clear permission here to resolve the second Hammerhand and apply the modifier, now until someone can cite me a single rule that provides denial I'm going to tell every Grey Knight player I meet that they can stack Hammerhand to their heart's content.

Asking for a quote to support a 'no permission' argument is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the others argument. It's true, it doesn't say you can't. That changes absolutely nothing regarding supposed permission to do so which is the part in contention.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Unfortunately, a statement that different powers stack says absolutely *nothing* about same powers. It is a logical fallacy - one commmited by the no stack side - to claim that this means that same powers do NOT stack.

Nothing is said about same power stacking. That is correct. Your fabled permission of 'use power skip to end effect' is sketchy at best. Use of a malediction or blessing causes it to become in some way active for a duration by their description and during that time its effects are applied. The stacking of that particular effect is what is being called into question and continually ignoring it by many of the stacking side does not lend credence to your arguments.

The power itself being applied to the target for a duration is itself an effect of a use of the power. No where does it say that is cumulative. The stacking side seems to disassociate the particular effects of a power from this for some reason which seems to me to leave a written rule outside of their idea of how the game mechanics work out in this area.

-----------------

Different arguments seem to have different hold-ups on both sides here so just to clarify where people are at as far as my stance goes.

When you successfully use a blessing/malediction according to the BRB it lasts for a duration unless otherwise noted. The power(not it's individual effects) lasting a length of time is, as far as I can tell, a state known as 'in effect'. Agreed?

The source of the stated effects of the power is the power being 'in effect' unless otherwise noted. Agreed?

The number of power effects as they are described is limited by the amount of that power 'in effect'. Agreed?

If disagreement is stated, please explain.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Due to the way Waaagh! Banners are worded, it is impossible to gain their effects more than once:

"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 Strength"

A unit has 3 Waaagh! Banners, does the unit include a Waaagh! Banner? Yes, so it gets +1 Strength.

you must be quoting a different rule, because banners adjust weapon skill, not str

My mob has 3 banners with the rule:

"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"
"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"
"A mob including a Waaagh! Banner has +1 WS"

4+1+1+1=7.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values."

The math works,pg 2 grants it permission, it must be RAW.

I like this argument better than the armor save one. pg 2 says any +1 to your armor save would go: 3+ save +1 modifier = 4+ save. 3+1=4. As pg 2 is the only argument the pro stacking side has, it's quite telling how they ignore what pg 2 actually says here.

But when it comes to armor saves the pro stackers will start quoting rules from the armor save section, saying the rules dictate the math. Yet for psychic powers it's pg 2 first and ignore the rules, the math dictates the rules. the cognitive dissonance here is astounding and why I believe that argument to be totally wrong.

So if psychic powers can stack with no rules support, than by the same logic my waaagh banners can stack. Because all math in the game is inherently cumulative

Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction, it an un-typed psychic power that gives a unit +1 Strength for the duration of the assault phase.
Per page 2, characteristic modifiers are cumulative. You claim that because the source of these modifiers is multiple iterations of the same psychic power permission to be cumulative is denied. I ask you to prove that.

Sirlynchmob: Yes, I made a typo. You noticed it, good job.
That is still not how the rule works, the unit either includes a Waaagh! Banner or it does not.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction,

I have no problem with it stacking then, thanks for clarifying that for me. As this is not a thread about Hammerhand I'm more or less speaking generally and my comments about maledictions and blessings stand.

Note to all: Sorry for the length of my above post BTW, I had a lot to respond to.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction, it an un-typed psychic power that gives a unit +1 Strength for the duration of the assault phase.
Per page 2, characteristic modifiers are cumulative. You claim that because the source of these modifiers is multiple iterations of the same psychic power permission to be cumulative is denied. I ask you to prove that.

Sirlynchmob: Yes, I made a typo. You noticed it, good job.
That is still not how the rule works, the unit either includes a Waaagh! Banner or it does not.

It's the same argument being used to say enfeeble or hammerhand stacks

The unit is either enfeebled or it's not.
it either has hammerhand or it doesn't

If you apply the rules for enfeeble or hammerhand more than once, it is exactly the same as applying the rules for the waaagh banner more than once.

All models in the unit have +1 str
All models in the mob have +1 ws

sirlynchmob wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction, it an un-typed psychic power that gives a unit +1 Strength for the duration of the assault phase.
Per page 2, characteristic modifiers are cumulative. You claim that because the source of these modifiers is multiple iterations of the same psychic power permission to be cumulative is denied. I ask you to prove that.

Sirlynchmob: Yes, I made a typo. You noticed it, good job.
That is still not how the rule works, the unit either includes a Waaagh! Banner or it does not.

It's the same argument being used to say enfeeble or hammerhand stacks

The unit is either enfeebled or it's not.
it either has hammerhand or it doesn't

If you apply the rules for enfeeble or hammerhand more than once, it is exactly the same as applying the rules for the waaagh banner more than once.

All models in the unit have +1 str
All models in the mob have +1 ws

Not quite, the wording on Hammerhand, and the Ork banner are not the same.

Enfeeble states "whilst the power is in effect" the unit loses 1 Strength and Toughness, so there's a good argument for Enfeeble not being cumulative with itself as it is either in effect or it isn't.

Hammerhand is worded completely differently to Enfeeble, it isn't "in effect", it simply gives the unit +1 Strength.

 Abandon wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Abandon: Your entire argument is irrelevant as Hammerhand is neither a Blessing nor Malediction,

I have no problem with it stacking then, thanks for clarifying that for me. As this is not a thread about Hammerhand I'm more or less speaking generally and my comments about maledictions and blessings stand.

Blessings and Maledictions, particularly those that have "whilst the power is in effect" wording (which is pretty much all of them) are too ambiguously worded for me to have a definite opinion on, which is why I've been focussing on Hammerhand. I play stuff like Enfeeble as whatever the local group generally plays it as.

Kambien - you realise the tenets allow you to cite rules? I have cited the rule. I do not have to provide it for you here.

Without the lasgun the unit could not make a shooting attack The lasgun caused the wound, through a series of dice rolls. Otherwise a DE unit shooting at a unit and destroying it deos not get the pain token, as it did not cause the unit to be destroyed, as they are one step further removed.

So no, not totally off base. Retract that assertion as it is proven false, again.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Kambien - you realise the tenets allow you to cite rules? I have cited the rule. I do not have to provide it for you here.

Without the lasgun the unit could not make a shooting attack The lasgun caused the wound, through a series of dice rolls. Otherwise a DE unit shooting at a unit and destroying it deos not get the pain token, as it did not cause the unit to be destroyed, as they are one step further removed.

So no, not totally off base. Retract that assertion as it is proven false, again.

you keep going on about this DE shooting unit and list no rules for your argument . Do you expect everyone to run around with copies of the DE rulebook ? Can you please cite the actual rules for a change ?

Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power. !

I can help here. It is being used because it is neither a malediction nor a blessing and lacks the "whilst this power is in effect" that basically all 6th Ed powers have. It is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on in relation to 6th Ed powers so are trying to muddy the water with a sloppily worded 5th Ed power and use this to imply that all powers stack as default. Essentially it is because they know they are wrong RaW and RaI but so desperately need to win the argument they are using an out of date power because it lacks the clarity of how it interacts with 6th Ed like the 6th Ed powers.