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.

So... I was wondering... Can Draigo cast "psichic communion" twice (psiker mastery 2)to get a +2/-2 to reserves? in the BRB it is said that a psyker cannot use the same psichic shooting attack twice but the rule seems to be restricted to shooting powers...
Am I correct? Am I missing something? Maybe some faq I'm not aware of clarified the thing?
Clear citations are well accepted!

Thanks a lot

I don't think it can stack, unlike hammerhand, which can.

Psychic communion stats it can stack.

Yes, with mastery 2 you CAN cast communion twice, and yes it will stack. The only restriction on casting powers twice is, as you say, PSA.

daedalus-templarius wrote:I don't think it can stack, unlike hammerhand, which can.

You have that completely backward

Not backward. BOTH powers stack.

If they both stack, why do they take the time to say "this power stacks with itself" with pys communion, but not with hammerhand? Seems silly to write that extra sentence in if all powers passively stacked with themselves

Evidence of redundancy is not evidence of necessity.

Why did they take the time in the Bike rules to tell you the modified toughness has no bearing on ID, when the ID rules perfectly cover this?

At least that is a clearly worded rule though. Is there a line in the rulebook that says units can use the exact same power twice or that they stack? I would be fine with redundancy then.

So if that works, I guess might of titan is the best ability ever. 2 upgraded libbys could give any basic unit on the field strength 10 and up to 7d6 penetration ><

You are permitted to use any psychic power you have. There is no restriction on how many time you use it *unless* it is a PSA.

The way it is worded explicitly allows stacking. It adds 1 to S, then the next casting adds one to S' - which is S+1.

And agreed. MoT is all you need...

omerakk wrote:At least that is a clearly worded rule though. Is there a line in the rulebook that says units can use the exact same power twice or that they stack? I would be fine with redundancy then.

So if that works, I guess might of titan is the best ability ever. 2 upgraded libbys could give any basic unit on the field strength 10 and up to 7d6 penetration ><

yes, but there would be almost no point in casting Might of Titan 7 times.

once you are str7(3 castings of hammerhand/Might of Titan) you will be wounding most things on 2s. and 3d6 Penetration with Str7 should be more then enough to penetrate anything.

and it would be easier and less risky to get a Deamonhamer if you need Str10 in CC.


and 2 Libbies with the capacity to do this would be stupid expensive. damn right they better be able to do this for costing upwards of 400+ points for the 2 of them

nosferatu1001 wrote:Evidence of redundancy is not evidence of necessity.

THIS. Of course though, you must admit, it makes it more likely that Hammerhand does not stack. GW may be sloppy, but when they specifically mention Might of Titan stacking with Hammerhand, Psychic Commiunion stacking with itself, but not Hammerhand stacking with itself, the weight of the evidence certainly leans in one direction. To argue the "evidence" carries no weight whatsoever is a bit much.

Grey Templar wrote:

omerakk wrote:At least that is a clearly worded rule though. Is there a line in the rulebook that says units can use the exact same power twice or that they stack? I would be fine with redundancy then.

So if that works, I guess might of titan is the best ability ever. 2 upgraded libbys could give any basic unit on the field strength 10 and up to 7d6 penetration ><

yes, but there would be almost no point in casting Might of Titan 7 times.

once you are str7(3 castings of hammerhand/Might of Titan) you will be wounding most things on 2s. and 3d6 Penetration with Str7 should be more then enough to penetrate anything.

and it would be easier and less risky to get a Deamonhamer if you need Str10 in CC.


and 2 Libbies with the capacity to do this would be stupid expensive. damn right they better be able to do this for costing upwards of 400+ points for the 2 of them

Not needed, but it can still be done.

And the fact that 1 unupgraded libby can make a basic gk troop strength 6 with 3d6 pen is just silly. Sure, it doesn't replace hammers, but its still ridiculous. And the fact that it could also make a strength 10 hammer hit with more than 1 d6 is just overkill lol

uuuh.... A topic about the possibility of casting the same power twice suddenly became ANOTHER topic about multiple uses of hammerhand stacking or not...
I feel the Modquisition approaching...

it is the RAW untill an FAQ says otherwise.

Entry for Hammerhand stacking with MoT is simple redundancy.

Grey Templar wrote:it is the RAW untill an FAQ says otherwise.

Entry for Hammerhand stacking with MoT is simple redundancy.

You forgot the "in my opinion" part. You must admit, what you call "redundancy" is actually slight evidence that Hammerhand (or anything else silent on the matter) does not stack in the GK codex. GW may be sloppy, but when they specifically mention Might of Titan stacking with Hammerhand, Psychic Commiunion stacking with itself, but not Hammerhand stacking with itself, the weight of the evidence certainly leans in one direction. To argue the "evidence" carries no weight whatsoever is a bit much. Asserting GW is never consistent in this codex, that these mentions are totally random, is IMHO pretty silly.

The evidence is, currently, as far as the RULES are concerned - simple redundancy. Nothing more.

Wow, assertions work awesome. Same with completely ignoring what was said.

Why bother commenting at all if all you are going to do is repeat an already made assertion?

you have hard evidence to the contrary?

Evidence to the Contrary isn't required. This is a permissive rule-set. Evidence in the affirmation is required.

It doesn't say you can stack them, so you can't.

It says that the next casting of Hammerhand increases the strength of the model; it does not say it increases the unmodified strength of the model

It stacks because the language LETS it stack, so it does. You need to show it doesnt.

Stavkat - it isnt an assertion; we have shown how in rules it stacks, therfore it is simple redundancy. It is not evidence of not stacking.

punkow wrote:uuuh.... A topic about the possibility of casting the same power twice suddenly became ANOTHER topic about multiple uses of hammerhand stacking or not...
I feel the Modquisition approaching...

Calm down, O wrong speller of the word Psychic. I shall give you peace.


YES! A single model MAY cast psychic communion twice, giving you 2-/2+ to reserves, ...or 1+1-...if you just felt like rolling dice....

It is not a shooting attack. So you can cast it twice. Much like hammerhand, which can be cast twice, regardless of the rules debate going on here.

As I have decided since the last big battle for GK rules (2+A-pro Now and Forever!) , Nosferatu and Grey Templar are the new Gwar! for rules, and as such, I completely agree with their rules argument on this. Raw states it adds one to strength when cast. It does, and until the FAQ (that frankly I am dying for, no matter how much it nerfbats my Codex's short-lived greatness) it will remain that way.


Rules as intended is more clear... and I think I know what were going to be seeing in the FAQ. Might of Titan is near useless if hammerhand actually does stack, the extra D6 only effecting heavy vehicles, even medium ones aren't safe from mass str 7 attacks. If we see the rise of 2+A and Hammerhand stacking in the FAQ, all hell will break lose when I have my str 7 ini 10 4 attacks base terminators roflstomping every. Single. Enemy. Unit.


But rules as intended counts for naught but what we must expect from the FAQ to come. We were instructed by The Immortal God Emperor, via his Holy Tome, and we shall do its bidding, to the very letter. We shall debate every word into obscurity and superstition. After all, we are the Imperium

Grey Templar wrote:you have hard evidence to the contrary?

I don't need evidence that you made an assertion. You made one in a one line post, that added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Opinions are great, but everybody has them - no need to chime in with, at best, nothing useful whatsoever, and at worst, a counter productive post which antagonizes others. I mean really, is it that hard to figure out?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Stavkat - it isnt an assertion; we have shown how in rules it stacks, therfore it is simple redundancy.

1) If the above is true, I still see NO VALUE whatsoever in Grey's post, as it does not refer to this prior showing you mention, nor does it even pretend to acknowledge any comments made in the preceding post. Imagine if I just replied to you with "Wrong." What good would that do? None.

It says that the next casting of Hammerhand increases the strength of the model; it does not say it increases the unmodified strength of the model

It stacks because the language LETS it stack, so it does. You need to show it doesnt.

Oh dear. Is this really hard to understand? Within this single codex we have other rules whose language potentially "allows" stacking yet most of them specifically have sentences declaring that stacking is possible. GW may be sloppy, but you are arguing that pattern here is not one, but instead just extreme sloppiness, to the point that multiple mentions of allowing stacking is no evidence whatsoever that these sentences are needed for stacking.

To counter your snide post: how hard is this to understand:

Evidence of redundancy is NOT EVIDENCE OF NECESSITY

I refer you to the bike rules. Will you now claim that, unless you are told a modifier does not affect ID, that it does?

THe rules are such that Hhand stacks. Provide *actual* evidence to the contrary.

In honor of Grey Templat, my answer to you should simply be:

WRONG. But I know better, so I will add you ignored my point. In the GK codex there is a pattern of sentences in psychic powers which explicitly grant stacking. It is peculiar to claim that pattern carries no weight in the argument whatsoever. But what should I expect when personal attacks are thrown around in place of argument. Snide? Really? So one line for a personal attack, another to repeat yourself, and a third and fourth to show you didn't get my point.

Slow down, relax, and let me know what it is about my point you would like clarified, or if you understand, give an actually relevant rebuttal. Otherwise, good day.

@Stavkat I think his point would be that the pattern in the GK codex gives us a good insight into what RAI is for the stacking issue. The other point however is that the RAW does allow stacking atm. Its very very likely that the faq will not allow stacking in the future, but simply a pattern of intent doesnt change how they actually wrote the rules.


Since rai seems to not allow stacking, thats what we are going with locally right now.



Sliggoth

Stav - ths line ". Is this really hard to understand? " is insulting. Shame you cannot see that.

I understand your point, and gave you a VERY strong rebuttal. If your claim the rules-wise redundant sentences actually have real rules weight, then any modifier to T which does not explicitly restate the rules for ID not caring about your modified T suddenly count for ID

Which is wrong.

As I said: evidence of redundant rules (reminding you they can stack) is not evidence of necessity. Whats hard to understand about that?

Looks like a "good day" is in order because once again, you missed my point. I spoke of a pattern of writing with regards to psychic powers in the GK codex potentially offering evidence, you pretend(?) it doesn't exist as you do not even comment on this pattern or even psychic powers. Somehow you think repeating your irrelevant answer about toughness is "VERY" strong, so strong you had to put very in all caps. Please. When most of the psychic abilities that could stack, say they stack, yet one does not, that should make a reasonable person pause and think that a pattern exists and may be meaningful, instead of claimnig it is random noise.

PS - If you are just going to parrot your last few comments please do not reply to me again.

No, your point was answered well above. You choose to ignore the answer, as you dont like it.

A pattern of writing redundant rules-wise rules only indicates that they like writing redundant rules

See beastmasters 0-x options
See bikes

GW consistently writes redundant rules. Thats the bigger pattern that, if you took your nose away from the screen, you may see. Wood, trees.

Locally we play it as it doesnt stack, but I wouldnt be surprised if the FAQ states that it can. Not because of intent, but because they just rule some things like that (see deffrolla.) Tyranids reserves stack, but I believe the same type does not. Locally we play you cant stack +1 reserves from the same ability. Right or wrong, no big deal, thats how we play it, if it helps in your decision making.

Deffrolla they simply ruled to work as the rules state, and the way it worked in the 4th ed version of the rules (against anything but a monolith and a landraider, of course)