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.

 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explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.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.

 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explicitly and Fire Shield does not, you would be incorrect - there is a reason, and that reason is that the power is no longer active to give you that benefit.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'?

Probably has to do with those pesky limitation rules under Blessings and Maledictions informing use that those powers last until your next player turn.

SJ

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.

Well done you've just proven that not even hammerhand stacks with itself...

Because you can't 2 manifestations of Hammerhand activate on a unit? Why not?

Because you can't 2 manifestations of Hammerhand activate on a unit? Why not?

Because there is no direct permission for them to be cumulative. If you assume the whilst active notion further castings have no cumulative effect because they have no permission to be so.

We have permission to resolve Hammerhand according to its entry, which rule states that having a previous manifestation of Hammerhand on the unit denies that permission?

Prince - remember, the made up requirement is made up. A requirement beyond the permission given on page 2 have never been shown

 PrinceRaven wrote:
We have permission to resolve Hammerhand according to its entry, which rule states that having a previous manifestation of Hammerhand on the unit denies that permission?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Prince - remember, the made up requirement is made up. A requirement beyond the permission given on page 2 have never been shown

Are you referring to the "made up" rules on page 68 covering psychic powers, to which Hammerhand is one of, that tells us different powers are cumulative unless otherwise noted? I know you disagree with the rules on page 32 that tell us modifiers from multiples of the same ability are not cumulative; thankfully, your disagreement does not make it untrue.

SJ

J , careful, you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting rules again.

1) a reminder isn't a restriction, you are aware of this fact, please stop repeating an untruth.
2) page 32, dealing with special rules? Not "abilities", as you claim, disingenuously? Good job +1s isn't a special rule, but a modifier. Again, you know 32 doesn't apply - and this was proven to everyone, repeatedly. You pretending otherwise doesn't alter simple facts.

You haven't shown a requirement, in this or any other thread. You pretend to, and then ignore the refutations, just repeating the same failed argument, over and over.

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?

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

Since that's what the rules say.

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 said it better below \/

 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.

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.

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.

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?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
J , careful, you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting rules again.

1) a reminder isn't a restriction, you are aware of this fact, please stop repeating an untruth.
2) page 32, dealing with special rules? Not "abilities", as you claim, disingenuously? Good job +1s isn't a special rule, but a modifier. Again, you know 32 doesn't apply - and this was proven to everyone, repeatedly. You pretending otherwise doesn't alter simple facts.

You haven't shown a requirement, in this or any other thread. You pretend to, and then ignore the refutations, just repeating the same failed argument, over and over.

Please look up to the definition for the word: Paraphrase.

SJ

 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.

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.

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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Wow, up to 10 pages now? I can't believe this argument is still going.

Seriously, you either have Hammerhand active, or you don't. It's a bit of a stretch to claim multiple castings of the same with cumulative effects.

If that's how some people want to play it, that's up to them but it tells me a lot about what type of player they are.

I'll be sticking to the rules however which give no permission for Hammerhand to stack.

The rules already given prove you to be wrong.

Stop inserting bias on others, it is really bad form, and leads to people using the Ignore function or the yellow triangle of friendship.

If that were the case this thread should have ended on page 1. If you want to ignore someone just because they don't agree with you, that's up to you.

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?

jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
J , careful, you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting rules again.

1) a reminder isn't a restriction, you are aware of this fact, please stop repeating an untruth.
2) page 32, dealing with special rules? Not "abilities", as you claim, disingenuously? Good job +1s isn't a special rule, but a modifier. Again, you know 32 doesn't apply - and this was proven to everyone, repeatedly. You pretending otherwise doesn't alter simple facts.

You haven't shown a requirement, in this or any other thread. You pretend to, and then ignore the refutations, just repeating the same failed argument, over and over.

Please look up to the definition for the word: Paraphrase.

SJ

Cool, so you still can't show any rules, and are happily ignoring / making things up as you want? Back on ignore

Tonberry7 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Wow, up to 10 pages now? I can't believe this argument is still going.

Seriously, you either have Hammerhand active, or you don't. It's a bit of a stretch to claim multiple castings of the same with cumulative effects.

If that's how some people want to play it, that's up to them but it tells me a lot about what type of player they are.

I'll be sticking to the rules however which give no permission for Hammerhand to stack.

The rules already given prove you to be wrong.

Stop inserting bias on others, it is really bad form, and leads to people using the Ignore function or the yellow triangle of friendship.

If that were the case this thread should have ended on page 1. If you want to ignore someone just because they don't agree with you, that's up to you.

Sigh. No, it's when people claim bias, fail to provide any actual rules, that they end up getting ignor. Not for simple disagreement

You haven't provided a single salient rule. Not a single one

 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.

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.

 Abandon wrote:
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.

So you have permission to use the cover save after the duration of the power is up?
In this case I'm sure you've cited it and I just missed it.
Would you mind doing so again? Or linking the post - either way. Because I'm sure you're not making things up at all.

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.

... Relevance? Hammerhand, like Maledictions and blessings, has a duration. Why are you discussing "what-if"s?

I'll wait til you actually address my points

Drawing a conclusion based on nothing isn't logical Don. The simple conclusion that any and all effects of a power last for the duration of the power unless it states otherwise. To think otherwise is irrational.

Permission to use/cast is permission (or, rather imperative) to resolve.
This does not necessarily mean the effects of the power will ever come into play, while the power is fully resolved, move on.

To link permission to cast, even successfully, with the guarantee of the effect actually taking effect, is a fallacy.

It is entirely possible, to have permission to cast, successfully cast and have the power do nothing at all.
It is even possible to do the above, in the full knowledge that the successfully cast power can have no effect at all and yet still be fully resolved.

Because of this, stating that powers do stack, because permission is granted to cast and the power demands "x" effect to be resolved, is an unsafe premise.

Permission to cast (and successfully casting), is not, in of itself, permission to have the powers effects applied.