Psychic powers. do they stack?

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.

**rigeld2**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - enough with the personal attacks, you have been reported.

Stating the truth isn't a personal attack.

As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".

False. Permission has been shown. Find the denial.
What you're saying is the equivalent of, "You can't shoot my unit. Sure you have permission and no denial, but that's the same as saying "if doesn't say I can't"". Demonstrably false.

And again, you can deny my statements all you want, your denial does not make my statements untrue. Your inability to refute my statements per the forum tenets is noted.

They've been refuted using actual rules. Multiple times. Your refusal to accept facts is amusing but useless in a discussion.

**Happyjew**

I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?

I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.

**jeffersonian000**

Happyjew wrote:
I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?

I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.

I bolded it for you.

SJ

**DeathReaper**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?

I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.

I bolded it for you.

SJ

You do realize there is a difference between a Psychic power and "psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1)" right?

Because if you do not then there is the error in your argument.

**rigeld2**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?

I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.

I bolded it for you.

Sorry - I don't see "Terrify" listed in the bolded words. That's what you'd need for your assertion to be true.

**jeffersonian000**

DeathReaper wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
I'm confused. If psychic powers were special rules, would they not be listed under the special rules for the unit?

I'm looking at the hemlock wraithfighter which has the terrify power, but the only special rules are: psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1), vector dancer.

I bolded it for you.

SJ

You do realize there is a difference between a Psychic power and "psychic pilot, psyker (mastery level 1)" right?

Because if you do not then there is the error in your argument.

You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include additional rules that bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.

SJ

**rigeld2**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.

Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).

**DeathReaper**

rigeld2 wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.

Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).

Exactly what Rigeld2 has said.

Some Psychic powers grant USR's, Hammerhand does not because "a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers... Where this is the case, the rule that governs the psychic power... will make this abundantly clear" (32)

Hammerhand does not grant a USR because it does not make it "abundantly clear" taht it grants a USR.

**jeffersonian000**

rigeld2 wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.

Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).

Who said all psychic powers are special rules? Not more than a few posts above yours I explain how psychic powers interact with special rules. Did you not read that post?

SJ

**Lungpickle**

LOL. I have to say its entertaining to see the debate however remember the people here don't make the rules or errata so its irrelevant, other then to argue.'

**nosferatu1001**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Nos - enough with the personal attacks, you have been reported.

Stating the truth - that you lied - is not a personal attack. It was proven true. You have even admitted it since.

jeffersonian000 wrote:As to "it doesn't say I can't ", I'd like to refer you back to your own argument that "different powers are cumulative does not mean same powers are not cumulative". I can go back through both threads and quote every time you or Rigeld made that argument, which does equate to "it doesn't say I can't".

No, it does not. What it DOES equate to is: you are using a logical fallacy as the basis for your argument, and we are pointing that fact out. The fact you are apparently unable to tell the difference between a rebuttal - which that is, a perfect one, of the claim that permission to accumulate different has ANY BEARING on same - and the argument given elsewhere - whcih is that we HAVE permission, and you are unable to find denial - is amusing.

jeffersonian000 wrote:And again, you can deny my statements all you want, your denial does not make my statements untrue. Your inability to refute my statements per the forum tenets is noted.

SJ

Well, apart from:

1) Proving your assertion about page 32 incorrect, using citations. It is noted that you have utterly failed to address the flawless rebuttal by others, almost as if you are doing the usual handwave away....
2) Proving that the logical fallacy used to assert denial is, in fact, a fallacy. While I wont commit the fallacy fallacy, it does undermine the argument somewhat.

Your statements are, factually, false. This has been proven. Please do not further insult posters here.

**kambien**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
whcih is that we HAVE permission,

actually i haven't seen this at all, could we get a quote to this so the thread is up to date

**jeffersonian000**

Where is this "proof" you often state yet never quote? Where is this "flawless argument"?

We are all still waiting, and have been waiting for 40+ pages. Please enlighten us. I would love for you or Rigeld to actually cite something, anything to support your argument.

SJ

**Crimson**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, it does not. What it DOES equate to is: you are using a logical fallacy as the basis for your argument, and we are pointing that fact out.

It is a logical fallacy if you assume that the rules are more like logical syntax rather than normal, everyday communication. It can instead be seen as an exception that proves the rule. If there's a sign that says "Parking allowed on Sundays" most people will interpret it to mean that it is indeed forbidden to park there in other days of the week, even though that logically doesn't follow.

**rigeld2**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
You do realize you can't have one without the other? One is a USR that gives access to using the other. The other may or may not include addition rules the bend or break other rules in the game. It seems that I do know the difference between the two.

Correct - you can't have one without the other.
That does not make all Psychic Powers Special Rules. Some Psychic Powers grant Special Rules (Endurance is the first one that comes to mind, granting 3) but not all Psychic Powers do (Hammerhand is the first that comes to mind).

Who said all psychic powers are special rules? Not more than a few posts above yours I explain how psychic powers interact with special rules. Did you not read that post?

Your assertion is that any rule that "bends or breaks the rules" is a Special Rule. You've failed to provide evidence of that.

**jeffersonian000**

While I may have failed to prove my point to you Rigeld, you have demonstrated an inability to read and/or understand the written word. As such, it looks like there isn't much more we can gain from your posts.

SJ

**rigeld2**

That's amusing. Instead of attempting to explain you jump to personal attacks.

I took you off ignore because I thought you'd actually participate in a discussion honestly. Silly me.

**PrinceRaven**

You are correct in saying that the strength modifier is due to a special rule. This special rule is called "Psyker" not "+1 strength modifier". This means that we cannot stack "Psyker" on a unit, it has no bearing on being able to stack the effects of "Hammerhand", which is a psychic power, not a special rule, and grants a modifier, not special rules that grant a modifier.

**kambien**

PrinceRaven wrote:
kambien wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
Why does the anti-stacking side believe specific permission is needed to apply things other than special rules (which, unlike psychic powers, have explicit denial to be cumulative) cumulatively?

If the answer to the above is "specific permission is a requirement for anything to be cumulative" how does this work when it comes to taking wounds? I can't find any specific permission for my Hive Tyrant to take more than one wound from a Lascannon.

I'm not sure by what you mean with the hive tyrant example . Lascannons are heavy 1 so you don't even get a chance to cause more wounds unless there is something else in play . Actually lascannos don't cause wounds anyways they modify the to wound roll from hits

I'm saying that if a Grey Knights unit can't have multiple +1 Str modifiers from Hammerhand without specific permission then a Hive Tyrant can't have multiple -1 wound modifiers from lascannons without specific permission. This example is intended to show that the requirement for specific permission to apply things cumulatively has been invented by the anti-stacking side and does not actually exist in the rules.

i believe nem summed it up a few posts after this one .
you have permissions for each unsaved wound from the wound pool to reduce the wounds of the model by 1 until 0 (pg 15)
it also states that this process only ends with no models left or no more wounds in the wound pool

**PrinceRaven**

That's my point though, you don't need specific permission to be cumulative because the basic rules already grant you permission do what it is you're trying to do, whether it be removing wounds or applying the effects of Hammerhand.

**FlingitNow**

PrinceRaven wrote:
That's my point though, you don't need specific permission to be cumulative because the basic rules already grant you permission do what it is you're trying to do, whether it be removing wounds or applying the effects of Hammerhand.

The wound allocation rules are specific permission to resolve wounds cumulatively though.

So by your logic all models can improve their cover save by one because the basic rules already grant you permission to do so. Look at stealth everyone accepts that you get +1 cover save from that and it doesn't have specific permission to improve your cover save.

Just because you have specific permission to be cumulative in certain areas doesn't mean you have blanket permission to be cumulative. Nor does saying you don't have permission to be cumulative in a situation where you clearly do help your argument.

**Nem**

PrinceRaven wrote:
That's my point though, you don't need specific permission to be cumulative because the basic rules already grant you permission do what it is you're trying to do, whether it be removing wounds or applying the effects of Hammerhand.

Feels flawed.... the basic rules give you permission to
For each shot roll to hit
For each successful hit, roll to wound.
For each unsaved wound, apply -1W.
For Shooting attacks, and CC attacks

In special rules you are;
Given permission to cumulate different special rules.
Given a restriction not to cumulate the same special rules.

In PP you are;
Given permission to cumulate the effects of different PPs.
Neither a permission or restriction to cumulate the effects of the same PPs.

Basic rules each handle their own cumulating for their own area, cumulating a ‘same’ item is only ever granted by spercific permission to, and the 'same' item or other is never assumed by the ability to apply the effect, in those cases we have previously classed the rules as satistfied by the first application rather than stacking the effects, each and every other rule/s in the rule book have guidance on how the same interacts. PP section should deal with this in its own right. Even the modifier section suggests it was written with the modifiers having come from multiple sources in mind, and omits PP's from its description all together.

**PrinceRaven**

You make a good point, Nem. I can see why wound allocation isn't really the best example to use.

**Purifier**

Nem wrote:
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.

Five pages later, still true.
LET'S SEE WHERE THIS GOES!

**jeffersonian000**

rigeld2 wrote:
That's amusing. Instead of attempting to explain you jump to personal attacks.

I took you off ignore because I thought you'd actually participate in a discussion honestly. Silly me.

My apologies! I didn't realize you were commenting on posts you never read. Maybe in the future, you should read someone's post before commenting on it. This would save everyone else from wondering why your posts are so far off base, such as asking for an explanation that was already given, or making blanket statements that are untrue.

SJ

**Abandon**

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.

**PrinceRaven**

There is no rule that states you need permission to be cumulative. As a permissive ruleset, you require permission to do things, and we have permission to resolve the effects of powers "according to instructions in its entry". Now, whether Enfeeble and similarly worded powers can be resolved cumulatively on a unit is up for debate, but that is due to the wording of the powers, not because of a basic rule that states the same power can't be cumulative with itself.

**Abandon**

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.

**PrinceRaven**

Abandon wrote:
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.

It seems we're in agreement then.

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.

I agree, the wording does seem to indicate that it isn't cumulative, I'm just not 100% sure on that because of the ambiguity. I mean, I think "the power" refers to the power Enfeeble in and of itself, but others think it means that particular manifestation of Enfeeble and I can't prove them wrong, both are viable interpretations.

**Abandon**

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.