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.

And your comparison of an assault marine is just silly. Yes he has 2 attacks. In no way shape or form is that a condition. CC weapon and bolt pistol grant +1 attack. As having both of those grant the +1 attack and the conditions and rewards are satisfied. Then Charging grants +1 attack. In the case of charging, if you charge the condition's and rewards are satisfied and +1 attack is granted. Totaling 4 attacks, if an assault marine has 2 base. (2 + 1 + 1 = 4) None of the wargear items are the same and their rules and conditions are separate.

The reason why your examples stack are because they are all different items that work together. Casting the same psyker power twice is an entirely different matter.

Assault marines have 1 attack as standard hence why they'd have 2 attacks on the charge. So they have 1+1 attacks which satisfies both the rules of gain +1 attacks for being double armed and gaining +1A for charging...

I really don't see why this is different for pyschic power 2 incidences of a power that grants +d3 attacks should mean +2d3 attacks. If it was might of Heros and say some other power or effect that granted +d3 attacks presumably you wouldn't have a problem with them stacking or would you?

Why do you draw eth line at 2 incidences of the same rule but not at 2 different rules with an identical effect?

Because they are the same power executed at the same time and not two things which are from different conditions being satisfied which happen to provide the same benefit.

apples, meet oranges.

Because they are the same power executed at the same time and not two things which are from different conditions being satisfied which happen to provide the same benefit.

But where in the rules does it state this is how it works?

FlingitNow wrote:

And your comparison of an assault marine is just silly. Yes he has 2 attacks. In no way shape or form is that a condition. CC weapon and bolt pistol grant +1 attack. As having both of those grant the +1 attack and the conditions and rewards are satisfied. Then Charging grants +1 attack. In the case of charging, if you charge the condition's and rewards are satisfied and +1 attack is granted. Totaling 4 attacks, if an assault marine has 2 base. (2 + 1 + 1 = 4) None of the wargear items are the same and their rules and conditions are separate.

The reason why your examples stack are because they are all different items that work together. Casting the same psyker power twice is an entirely different matter.

Assault marines have 1 attack as standard hence why they'd have 2 attacks on the charge. So they have 1+1 attacks which satisfies both the rules of gain +1 attacks for being double armed and gaining +1A for charging...

I really don't see why this is different for pyschic power 2 incidences of a power that grants +d3 attacks should mean +2d3 attacks. If it was might of Heros and say some other power or effect that granted +d3 attacks presumably you wouldn't have a problem with them stacking or would you?

Why do you draw eth line at 2 incidences of the same rule but not at 2 different rules with an identical effect?

Really? I mean you thought of this all on your own, proof read, and still thought it was a good idea?

Assault marines have 1 attack as standard hence why they'd have 2 attacks on the charge. So they have 1+1 attacks which satisfies both the rules of gain +1 attacks for being double armed and gaining +1A for charging...

Getting +1 attack for assaulting, how does that satisfy the requirements for having two CCW? Getting +1 attack for having two ccw, how does that satisfy the requirements for assaulting? By your standard, I can take a tactical marine without 2 ccw, and give him +1 attack since you propose that the requirements for two ccw are fulfilled simply by him charging. Or if I have an assault marine, he gets the +1 attack assaulting since you propose that the requirements for assaulting are fulfilled by having two ccw.

Your examples fall apart when you are trying to relate psychic powers to anything other then psychic powers, specifically librarian psychic powers.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Your examples fall apart when you are trying to relate psychic powers to anything other then psychic powers, specifically librarian psychic powers.

Exactly, psychic powers relate to psychic powers.

And Fling +1 attack is not a condition in itself. The wargear is what gives +1 attack, so when wargear is worn +1 attack becomes a condition specific to that item of wargear. By example, if a model could take double powerfists they wouldnt be strength 16. They would be strength 8 with +1 attack for the same weapons. Same thing with dual lightning claws. You dont get more re-rolls for having two lightning claws, you get to re-roll wounds and +1 attack.

FlingitNow wrote:

insaniak wrote:Except that the second time you try to cast it, as you have already performed an action in that phase it is no longer the start of the phase.

So you're only going to be able to cast it once per phase.

The implication of this logic is only 1 psychic power per phase in total which completely bones any psychic related army and isn't how the game in usually played.

It would only limit you to one power per phase if all of the powers specified that they should be used at the start of the phase. Powers that can be used at any time, or just 'during' the phase would be unaffected.

jbunny wrote:No one as answered my question of two different Librians each casting moH on the same IC. Will it work then?

The answer is the same to the one you quoted. After the first Librarian casts the power, it is no longer the start of the phase. So, as far as I can see, the rules don't actually allow you to have two different Librarians cast that power in the same turn.

Whether or not that's how it is suposed to be played is anyone's guess.


For what it's worth, I'm leaning towards playing it as allowing multiple 'start of phase' powers, so long as they are all cast before any other action is taken... because otherwise you run into all sorts of precedence issues when both players have a power that needs to be cast at the start of the phase. But unless GW address it, that would be a house rule...

Just read this whole thing. i can answer the Eldar issue. In play testing with a seer council at first it stacked, when the results were seen it was specifically worded.

When there was a playtest of the SM codex that character did not exist.

Doesn't answer the question just a tid-bit from the days of that codex's development.

BTW I would agree that the power is pointless to cast twice as you will only get the one +d3 attacks. Even if cast by two different models. Once the conditions are met they are met.

It would have to specifically say they can stack.

My house rule would be if cast twice may re-roll the number of bonus attacks. But thats in my house. Not anywhere else.

Except that the second time you try to cast it, as you have already performed an action in that phase it is no longer the start of the phase.

So you're only going to be able to cast it once per phase.

Would you care to cite your source that you can only cast or do one thing at the start of the phase? The CSM FAQ disagrees with this and uses an example of Gifts of Chaos which is used at the begining of a turn being used multiple times.

Because they are the same power executed at the same time and not two things which are from different conditions being satisfied which happen to provide the same benefit

As to meeting the requirments of the d3 attacks when Might of Heroes is used mutiple time, I disagree. When a model is given d3 attacks by Might Heroes then another is stacked it no where states that it replaces or is prevented from adding on. Might of Heroes will check each time to see if that paticular casting added its d3 attacks to meet its requirments as a successful cast. There is also no example that I am aware of that prevents a stacking buff like this to illustrate a counter arguement and special care was worded in Enchance to prevent stacking.

Borris the Blade wrote:Would you care to cite your source that you can only cast or do one thing at the start of the phase?

I already stated the reasoning behind it: Once you have done something that phase, it is no longer the start of the phase. The start of the phase is the start of the phase... by very definition, it's before anything else happens.

After you have used a power, you would be trying to take another action close to or shortly after the start of the phase.

The CSM FAQ disagrees with this and uses an example of Gifts of Chaos which is used at the begining of a turn being used multiple times.

Gift of Chaos is not presented as a power that can be used multiple times at the start of the phase... it's presented as being able to be used more than once due to not being a shooting attack.

While it can be presented as a precedent, to be honest I would suspect that whoever wrote the FAQ didn't stop to consider the 'start of phase' requirement on GoC... they most likely just got as far as 'not a shooting attack = no rule specifically saying it can only be used once'...

Nothing tells you they stack, they don't stack. How much longer will this go on?

Nothing tells you they stack, they don't stack. How much longer will this go on?

The fact it says +d3 attacks rather then gains d3 attacks. The + sign is very indicative of it being addative. Brother Ramses, try next time to enlighten us with a little clarity of citing some rules or examples rather then what you think before you post. I have illustrated several examples to present my case and argue the claims, in return I have yet to see any citing of other rules or quotations of rules with page # listing their source to support their claims. Its like going to a debate where people bring their facts backed by sources and some lone person tries to argue with nothing more then hearsay to support their claims.

Well, apart from being shown that the power cannot be cast twice at all, if you want to go down the route you are proposing.

I already stated the reasoning behind it: Once you have done something that phase, it is no longer the start of the phase. The start of the phase is the start of the phase... by very definition, it's before anything else happens.

That depends on how broad or narrow you use the term start of the phase, it doesn't say as the first action of the phase only as the start opf the phase.

If you go down this route the minute 2 Deep striking units arrive on the battlefield in the same turn the game breaks...

I interprete start as before the normal actions of the phase as in before all actions that don't specify they must be done at the start. So as soon as you do something you don't HAVE to do at the start of the phase you can no longer perform those actions otherwise you can perform all actions that occur at the tsart of the phase in any order you wish. You don't just give up and go home the minute that SM player tells you he has 2 drop pods arriving on turn 1...

FlingitNow wrote:If you go down this route the minute 2 Deep striking units arrive on the battlefield in the same turn the game breaks...

How so?

insaniak wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:If you go down this route the minute 2 Deep striking units arrive on the battlefield in the same turn the game breaks...

How so?

It doesn't, FlingitNow is just trying to trolls methinks!

At the OP, a Serious Question. Why did you come to Dakka and ask for our opinions when you are not going to listen to them? If you really want to have a Librarian with +4D3 attacks, you can, just make up the rule that allows you, but by the rules as written (except for TMIR which isn't really a rule anyway), you cannot.

At the OP, a Serious Question. Why did you come to Dakka and ask for our opinions when you are not going to listen to them? If you really want to have a Librarian with +4D3 attacks, you can, just make up the rule that allows you, but by the rules as written (except for TMIR which isn't really a rule anyway), you cannot.

Because in most cases the the answers are backed with direct refrences to the rules with citations. Every now and then you can walk away going, hey cool I learned something new. If I limited myself to just accepting any answer and taking that as the gospel it would be no better then watching Glen Beck on Fox News and taking everything he says as the honest truth or any media for that matter. In the topic of Might of Heroes, I have posted it here hoping to get a direct refrence not so much how it stacks or works but if there is a direct, easy to cite rule that I may be missing on multi casting. Usually I hate posting in Youmakedacall because it can turn into nothing more then a circus of drama where as on other sites there is more discussion and a much more civil and open minded approach. Yet I find myself needing to go to multiple sites to get a large survey on how people approach this and maybe with such a large pool of people going over it I may find the answer.

You guys can keep banging your head against the wall on this question, but the truth is that GW's writing on matters like these is entirely inconsistent.

It probably stems from the fact that the rules are written by a variety of writers over many years but the truth is that sometimes GW acts as if effects should be cumulative unless specified otherwise and other times the opposite is true (that effects aren't cumulative unless specified otherwise). The same is true for things like cover saves...often they write as if cover saves are applied unless specified otherwise and in other situations the reverse seems true.

So trying to find consistent precedent is absolutely impossible on a situation like this, as is finding a pure 'RAW' conclusion that most anyone could even hope to agree on.


I think the best bet is just to post a 'how are you going to play it' kind of poll and roll with whatever the majority seems to think as otherwise you're just looking for arguments everytime you try to pull this off with someone who thinks you're totally trying to cheat.

The start of the phase idea is particularly...fluid. It can easily be interpeted two different ways.

1) The very first thing that happens at the start of the phase, ie *There can only be one!*

2) Anything that has to be done at the start of the phase has to be done before we move along and start doing regular phase effects/ abilities.


Going with number 1 will cause problems if both players have something that they want to do at the start of the phase, since there is no rule telling us who would get to do the one and only start of the phase effect.

Plus, there is the overall looseness of the GW rules writing that lends itself to the idea that they just meant, do that stuff before the other stuff.



Sliggoth

Borris the Blade wrote:

Nothing tells you they stack, they don't stack. How much longer will this go on?

The fact it says +d3 attacks rather then gains d3 attacks. The + sign is very indicative of it being addative. Brother Ramses, try next time to enlighten us with a little clarity of citing some rules or examples rather then what you think before you post. I have illustrated several examples to present my case and argue the claims, in return I have yet to see any citing of other rules or quotations of rules with page # listing their source to support their claims. Its like going to a debate where people bring their facts backed by sources and some lone person tries to argue with nothing more then hearsay to support their claims.

Actually you have brought nothing.
You have brought up Chaos, Eldar, Rune Priests, Shooting, Assault, etc, etc, but you have not brought up anything for BLOOD ANGELS LIBRARIANS that says that MoH stacks. And now you are trying to semantics to say that it is additive? Really? How about just tell us that Meph came to you in a vision and granted you MoH stacking abilities because that would be more believable then what you have proposed so far.

Here is a challenge, don't bring up any other codex or FAQ, OTHER then Blood Angels and tell me where it tells you that MoH can stack. The burden of proof that MoH stacks is on your shoulders, not mine.

FlingitNow wrote:If you go down this route the minute 2 Deep striking units arrive on the battlefield in the same turn the game breaks...



How so?

Just checking rule book was on way to work... I thought that you had to arrive by DS at the start of the phase though I can't find that wording at the moment. Hence why I thought the incidence of 2 (or more) units arriving by reserve would break the game.

Still your definition of start being the very first thing to happen still causes problems if both players wish to cast powers at the start of the same phase and has greater implications for a number of armies, in fact not movement pyschic powers would be permissible if you had reserves as you have top roll for reserves at the start of the movement phase.

Are you really saying that no movement pyschic powers if you have units in reserve? That seems a pretty bizarre way to interprete the given text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Actually you have brought nothing.
You have brought up Chaos, Eldar, Rune Priests, Shooting, Assault, etc, etc, but you have not brought up anything for BLOOD ANGELS LIBRARIANS that says that MoH stacks. And now you are trying to semantics to say that it is additive? Really? How about just tell us that Meph came to you in a vision and granted you MoH stacking abilities because that would be more believable then what you have proposed so far.

Here is a challenge, don't bring up any other codex or FAQ, OTHER then Blood Angels and tell me where it tells you that MoH can stack. The burden of proof that MoH stacks is on your shoulders, not mine.

Find something in the BA codex that tells me that the attack bonus' for CCW and initiating assault stack?

Ok, expand it to the BRB and the BA codex, to be fair.

Flingitnow, the reason why the +1A from an extra CCW and charging stack is because they are from different source rules.

similar to doubling strength with a power weapon then getting +1 strength from furious charge.

or rolling an "extra" D6 for penetration because you have a melta weapon and adding an additional +1 to the roll because you have Tank Hunters.

MoH can only ever provide a bonus of +D3, its the same as if a unit had 4 CCWs, it would still only get +1 attack, not +3.

FlingitNow wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:If you go down this route the minute 2 Deep striking units arrive on the battlefield in the same turn the game breaks...



How so?

Just checking rule book was on way to work... I thought that you had to arrive by DS at the start of the phase though I can't find that wording at the moment. Hence why I thought the incidence of 2 (or more) units arriving by reserve would break the game.

Still your definition of start being the very first thing to happen still causes problems if both players wish to cast powers at the start of the same phase and has greater implications for a number of armies, in fact not movement pyschic powers would be permissible if you had reserves as you have top roll for reserves at the start of the movement phase.

Are you really saying that no movement pyschic powers if you have units in reserve? That seems a pretty bizarre way to interprete the given text.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Actually you have brought nothing.
You have brought up Chaos, Eldar, Rune Priests, Shooting, Assault, etc, etc, but you have not brought up anything for BLOOD ANGELS LIBRARIANS that says that MoH stacks. And now you are trying to semantics to say that it is additive? Really? How about just tell us that Meph came to you in a vision and granted you MoH stacking abilities because that would be more believable then what you have proposed so far.

Here is a challenge, don't bring up any other codex or FAQ, OTHER then Blood Angels and tell me where it tells you that MoH can stack. The burden of proof that MoH stacks is on your shoulders, not mine.

Find something in the BA codex that tells me that the attack bonus' for CCW and initiating assault stack?

Don't misdirect. CCW and Assault bonuses have absolutely no bearing on MoH stacking. Absolutely nothing at all. Just answer the question as to where in the Blood Angels codex does it state that MoH can stack?

FlingitNow wrote:Still your definition of start being the very first thing to happen still causes problems if both players wish to cast powers at the start of the same phase and has greater implications for a number of armies, in fact not movement pyschic powers would be permissible if you had reserves as you have top roll for reserves at the start of the movement phase.

Yes... I already pointed out that it causes problems. Hence my statement that I wouldn't play it that way.

Are you really saying that no movement pyschic powers if you have units in reserve? That seems a pretty bizarre way to interprete the given text.

The fact that a given interpretation leads to bizarre results doesn't make it wrong. In this case, it simply means that loose writing has resulted in the rules being a little bizarre. We can get around the problem by inserting a looser definition of 'the start of the phase'... you just need to get everyone to agree on just how loose that definition should be.


The rules should have included a rule explaining what to do if there are multiple things that can happen at the same time... whether you just perform them sequentially, or have to choose one of them. They don't, so it's left to us to create a house rule to cover the situation.

The fact that a given interpretation leads to bizarre results doesn't make it wrong. In this case, it simply means that loose writing has resulted in the rules being a little bizarre. We can get around the problem by inserting a looser definition of 'the start of the phase'... you just need to get everyone to agree on just how loose that definition should be.

Start doesn't always mean the very first thing, that was my point. You have decided by start they mean "very first thing" and hence your interpretation produces bizare results which implies that particular interpretation of the word "start" is incorrect. The rules give us no guidance as to what start of the phase means, that doesn;t mean you have to default to the very first thing or strictest understanding o fthe word the most common usage would make far more sense.

FlingitNow wrote:Start doesn't always mean the very first thing, that was my point.

Sorry, but that's exactly what 'start' means.

Anything that happens after the very first thing is no longer happening at the start. It's happening after the start.


The interpretation that these powers and abilities are used in the initial period of the phase before other stuff happens is one that makes the rules function... but it's not what we're being told to do. The start of the phase is the start of the phase.

Warhammer is going to need The Stack soon too many phase dependent interactions.
But what we are saying atm is that as long as no other 'start of the phase' things have been finished we can declare another? But once a SoP ability is finished we can no rolger declar more. Ie, we can re-roll from one 'lot' but as soon as that 'lot' is changed we can no longer effect it?

I woudl simply say that all 'start of phase' effects have to be used before anything else happens.

How to determine what order to perform those start of phase actions is up to you.

@ ChrisP Yes, one of the interpretations is that there is a start of the phase moment. During this start of the phase moment anything that occurs at the start of the phase can be done, no matter how many of these start of the phase effects are done there is no limit to how many can be performed. Once we have done anything else that does not occur at the start of the phase (ie moved a unit), then the start of the phase is done and nothing else tied to the start of the phase can be done.

Its the more benign ruling for game play, and will cause fewer game arguements.

If one does want to adhere to the idea that a start of the phase is limited to one event and only one event snugged up right at the start of the phase, it can be brought to the point where nothing can be used. A player announces hes starting his phase, and then start to say that he will use a start of the phase ability. Other player points out that its no longer the start of the phase, that occurred several seconds ago. One can never use start of the phase abilities because if the start is one split nanosecond there just isnt time to use an ability in that brief time period. Thats the end result of this line of thought, carried to its conclusion.

The other problem with start of phase being limited to one event is what happens if more than one player wishes to use an ability that would use up the one slot?


So the less game breaking interpretation is the one that seems to be used in practice, allowing multiple start of phase events to occur.


Sliggoth

Sorry, but that's exactly what 'start' means.

So if I told you something was in the start of a book you would look at only the first word or letter? If I told you something happened at the start of a film you'd watch the first frame only?

Whilst the start includes the very first thing it is not always restricted to it.