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.

FlingitNow wrote:

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?

Yes, I would.

Yes, I would.

Then you've just failed to understand a simple English sentence.

FlingitNow wrote:So if I told you something was in the start of a book you would look at only the first word or letter?

If you meant anything other than the actual start of the book, that would be an imprecise use of the language.

That's generally perfectly acceptable for everyday conversation, since precision is largely unnecessary (unless you're trying to determine whether someone has read something specific in the early part of the book, for example...)

But for a set of gaming rules, that sort of lack of precision is completely useless, because it doesn't give a defined period. You're basically saying that when the phase begins, you have some undefined period in which to perform these actions... so you will never have any way of knowing, when you try to perform one of those actions, whether or not you are doing so within the allowed period.


The thing is, it ultimately doesn't matter. Using my interpretation (that the start of the phase is the start of the phase), we need a house rule to allow multiple 'start of phase' effects to happen. Using your interpretation (the the 'start of the phase' is a period of time after the phase begins) we need a house rule defining which things can happen during that period and when that period stops.

And either way, we wind up playing exactly the same way. Making the whole argument over the precise meaning of the word 'start' pretty pointless, really.

Of course, we still also need a house rule determining whether the various 'start of phase' actions happen simultaneously, or in some sort of order.

Well you also get into a whole odd stacking situation on which resolves when, say you are deep striking and you want another unit to use a power that specifically says at the start of the turn. I believe logically that the start "phase" would be before anyone has moved the problem with this is that there is no Start phase, there is move, shoot, assault, end. Or is it start, move, shoot, assault, end... hmm.

I do think Boris the Blade makes some good points about MoH because given other examples of other power and things of that nature each instance of MoH would add another +d3 attacks like if you had 2 ragnar's in a squad would each give a +d3 attacks.. at least I think that's how it works. I'm pretty sure the power is not ment to stack a to infinity and give you a billion attacks because all you have to do is charge and well.. everything dies GG go home, but how its written it is not hard to see adding a d3 to d3 to d3 to charge to CCW to base attacks.

The thing is, it ultimately doesn't matter. Using my interpretation (that the start of the phase is the start of the phase), we need a house rule to allow multiple 'start of phase' effects to happen. Using your interpretation (the the 'start of the phase' is a period of time after the phase begins) we need a house rule defining which things can happen during that period and when that period stops.

We'll leave the start debate then (I'm not conceding).

You way does require a houserule, in fact I'd suggest likely 2 house rules, one being your definition of start of the phase and one being what to do when both players have effects that occur at the start of the phase. My interpretation requires no house rules except to govern when these actions occur (either in order or simultaneously) at this point your interpretation requires a 3rd house rule.

This is the crux of wether the power stacks if the actions do not happen simultaneously then it is impossible to deny that Might of Heroes stacks as currently written, whilst if they do occur simultaneously then it leads itself to an interpretation when they don't stack (though not as conclusively see the Eldar Autarch Master Strategist rule for counter evidence).

So basically we've come to a conclusion give up and go home or the power can be used twice or come up with 3 houserules to not permit this. Then either follow the natural language that it can stack or follow previous precedent that it can stack or follow contradictory precedent that it can't...

Allowing someone to cast it twice and for it to stack breaks the least rules, breaks the game the least, follows GW implications the most and requires the least house rules to govern the situation to a satisfactory solution.

FlingitNow wrote:You way does require a houserule, in fact I'd suggest likely 2 house rules, one being your definition of start of the phase and one being what to do when both players have effects that occur at the start of the phase. My interpretation requires no house rules except to govern when these actions occur (either in order or simultaneously) at this point your interpretation requires a 3rd house rule.

Applying your own specific definition of 'the start of the phase' is no less a house rule than me doing the same.
You still also need the same house rule governing what to do if both players have effects that occur at the same time.
And you need a house rule dictating just when this nebulous 'start of the phase' ends.

So, as I said, if you're aiming for being able to use more than one start of phase ability, the end result is exactly the same as doing it my way.

Well, there is a slight difference between the two approaches.

If there can only be one start of phase effect used per phase, then at times it becomes vital to the game to be the one who gets to use that ability, The entire outcome of the game may well hinge on who gets to add +d3 attacks (or similar effect). Even if the game isnt decided with whoever gets to be the lucky one, the game is still going to be significantly aggected.

If there can be multiple start of phase effects then it should be more balanced, each effect will "go off", so there should be no fitst fights over who gets to use their power.




******************************************************************************************************

A slightly different take on adding +d3 attacks.

Furious charge adds +1 to a model's strength when it assaults; if the model for some reason has multiple copies of furious charge active on it when it assaults, then adding +1 str one time satisfies each of the rules. The same for other effects that are active on a model when the trigger conditions are met.

Now for a psychic power that adds +d3 there is a major difference. When the power is used the first time +d3 attacks are added, the die is rolled and a 2 may well come up...so +2 attacks are added. Now, if the power is used again on the same model, the +2 attacks does NOT satisfy the new use of the power. The new use of the power says to add +d3, it does NOT say to add +2 attacks. While it is possible that the new die roll might be a 2 also, it is not guaranteed.

So any power that triggers and resolves, especially one that has avariable component, must be able to stack.

There are two base reasons here, why this must be true:



Each of the uses of the powers is being triggered at a separate time, so adding a bonus previously in the turn is not the same as adding multiple copies of the effect at the same time.

Even if that is believed to fail, the second reason is far harder to avoid. A roll of d3 that has been taken is no longer a d3, it is now a discreet result of either 1,2 or3. So another effect that would add another +d3 would not be satisfied by the previous effect. Something that has already been resolved as a 2 is not the same as d3.



Sliggoth

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

Think of multiple instances of furious charge, this is the closest analogue I can think of which would demonstrate how multiple instances of the same ability would interact. As a unit that has 2 instances of furious charge assaults, the program queries the models and asks, "Do you have furious charge?" the models answer "Yes" then the model receives +1 s and i, no further inquiries are made.

Interesting, this may be relevant, maybe not.

p 50 Psykers

(but still cannot use the same power
twice in a turn).

But still, multiple instances of an ability dont necessarily stack. Its all about the game mechanics, there has to be an extraordinary rule that allows them to stack because game rules typically just ask IF something exists, not how many of it. But I dont have a direct rules quote to satisfy a burden of proof. I think you would be hard pressed to get people to agree that the default is that they stack, I think its much more reasonable to assume that the default is that they do not stack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sliggoth wrote:ate time, so adding a bonus previously in the turn is not the same as adding multiple copies of the effect at the same time.

Even if that is believed to fail, the second reason is far harder to avoid. A roll of d3 that has been taken is no longer a d3, it is now a discreet result of either 1,2 or3. So another effect that would add another +d3 would not be satisfied by the previous effect. Something that has already been resolved as a 2 is not the same as d3.

Reading this caused me to go back and read the MoH again, initially it appeared to me that it read "When assaulting" but it doesn't, it simply reads that it gains +d3 that phase. Hrm... This is obviously different than other abilities with triggers such as anything that reads "When" or "if"; those are keywords for triggered abilities and anything with those keywords clearly can happen only once; the only trigger MoH has is if it is successful, obviously not relevant to this context.

Guess the only relevant question left is whether or not we can use the same non-shooting psychic power more than once! If we can, then MoH can be used more than once and a model can gain Xd3 extra attacks in that phase where X is the number of times you can conjure up MoH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The discussion about "Start of phase" is completely irrelevant. Start of phase simply details that you use it before you assault... The verbiage you are looking for is "When the assault phase begins, then <this conditional trigger happens>"

I think the real issue is that MoH can be read with "gains +d3 attacks" (the model goes from A:2 to A:2+D3) just like "gains Furious Charge" or "gains rending" so it clearly wouldn't stack, but it can also be read as "gains d3 attacks" (the plus sign being treated as simple extraneous junk) so it clearly would.

Can someone put forth an argument which doesn't amount to an appeal to obviousness for why it should be read one way or the other?

Sliggoth wrote:Well, there is a slight difference between the two approaches.

If there can only be one start of phase effect used per phase,...

I think you've missed my argument somewhat. I'm not saying that it should be played as one start of phase effect, just that that is how I perceive the RAW. The 'two approaches' that I've been referring to are allowing multiple start of phase effects regardless of the RAW not allowing it, or allowing multiple start of phase effects due to choosing to interpret 'start of phase' as referring to some undefined period of time in the phase before other stuff happens.

Only allowing a single start of phase effect causes all sorts of problems, so I think can be safely ignored as not being how the game is supposed to be played, regardless of how you read the rules.



And for what it's worth, given the wording of the MoH, I see no reason it wouldn't stack if you're allowing it to be cast more than once in the phase. If the power is successful, the Librarian and unit gain +D3 attacks. If it was worded that the attacks were gained if the power is in effect, it wouldn't stack... it would work the same as Furious Charge, or the Waaagh banner... But given the existing wording, each time the power is successfully used, the target gains the attacks.

solkan wrote:I think the real issue is that MoH can be read with "gains +d3 attacks" (the model goes from A:2 to A:2+D3) just like "gains Furious Charge" or "gains rending" so it clearly wouldn't stack, but it can also be read as "gains d3 attacks" (the plus sign being treated as simple extraneous junk) so it clearly would.

Can someone put forth an argument which doesn't amount to an appeal to obviousness for why it should be read one way or the other?

The number of attacks a model has is "'A' plus Assault Bonus (if applicable) plus Two weapons bonus (if applicable) and any "Other Bonuses" (If applicable)(P. 37 Number of Attacks). Each instance of MoH reads "Add D3 to A in the Other Bonus category" since they are discrete additions and not conditionally granted, a creatures list of bonuses can read something like (as explained later) "MoH, MoH, Furious Charge, Furious Charge, Unleashed Rage" a creature's attacks would then read: "A plus D3 plus D3 Plus 1 Plus 1" in the case of a model that is assaulting (plus 1) has 2 weapons (second plus 1) and then two instances of MoH.

I think it is relevant at this point to reiterate the difference between Furious Charge and MoH. First things first, it is very important to watch for and understand "Keywords". The keyword in FC that sets off a conditional trigger is "When" as in "When attacking". So the game's rules for Furious Charge are constantly checking a model's behavior, once the trigger is performed (that is, once a model attacks) it asks "Does it have furious charge?" and no matter how many instances of FC it has, the model will come back and simply say "Yes". This is how conditional triggers work; a condition can only be met once and thus it can only trigger once and thus can only confer its bonus(es) once. Since the MoH rule does not have any conditional triggers which confer bonuses, a single model may receive two casts in the same assault phase of MoH and as such will have two bonuses which each read "Add d3 attacks" discrete from each other.

If you want me to I can continue and explain more about conditional logic, a sneak peak, when the antecedent is met, the consequent follows, no matter how many times the antecedent is met, the consequent can only follow once.

Side note, the A Characteristic is one of the rare instances where a characteristic may go over 10...

Just FYI, the MoH rule does have several conditions, however, none of them affect the ability, granting D3 additional attacks, which is conferred onto the model. Thus, things like "If successful" "In the same unit as the librarian" and the implied "Until end of turn" are all irrelevant to understanding how the ability is conferred onto the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Only allowing a single start of phase effect causes all sorts of problems, so I think can be safely ignored as not being how the game is supposed to be played, regardless of how you read the rules.

^ This

I have a long argument for why the reading: "You can only use one power that reads, 'This power is used at the start of either player's assault phase' per assault phase" is completely wrong, but what you just said is sufficient and much more effective.

insaniak wrote:And for what it's worth, given the wording of the MoH, I see no reason it wouldn't stack if you're allowing it to be cast more than once in the phase. If the power is successful, the Librarian and unit gain +D3 attacks.

Just a minor clarification needed, only one model may receive the MoH, the Librarian can cast it on himself or he may cast it on "any one other model in the same unit as the Librarian", if an upgraded Librarian commits both of his slots to MoH he may then cast one on himself and one on another model, but MoH only affects one model at a time.

Applying your own specific definition of 'the start of the phase' is no less a house rule than me doing the same.

Well it quite clearly is less of ahouserule as it is what GW says you should play therefore it is a rule not a house rule. Anyway in your own totalling up a housertules you neglected to include your houserule definition of start of eth phase yet in clued my actual rule start of the phase as a house rule and still; came up even which should tell you something...

So, as I said, if you're aiming for being able to use more than one start of phase ability, the end result is exactly the same as doing it my way.

Except you only require 1 houserule (whether effects are simultanoeous or not which given the rule set yo havbe no reason to beleive they are and therefore with out houserule would again conclude they aren't) rather tyhan a houserule governingb the start of the phase a house rule governing exactly what happens during it, a houserule as to the order of these things and a houserule to even allow more than one of thse things to occur.

Even by your definition with your presumed houserule to allow multipele start of phase actions still there is no reason to assume the effect doesn't stack. The language tells you it does therefore if you don't want it to you need a rule (or rules) to tell you it doesn't and you have none beyond giving up the game because you don't understand the word start...

FlingitNow wrote:Even by your definition with your presumed houserule to allow multipele start of phase actions still there is no reason to assume the effect doesn't stack. The language tells you it does therefore if you don't want it to you need a rule (or rules) to tell you it doesn't and you have none beyond giving up the game because you don't understand the word start...

Hence my pointing out that I believe that it stacks...



The rest of the discussion here has gone beyond silly. Frankly, the issue of whether a given interpretation requires more house rules than another is completely irrelevant. If it requires house rules at all to work, it's going to require a discussion with your opponent. Getting into a pissing contest about whether or not your interpretation involves fewer house rules than mine is pointless argument for the sake of argument.

Hence my pointing out that I believe that it stacks...

My bad I thought you were arguing the exact opposite, sorry! Hence why I felt it mattered which method required the least breaks/invention of the rules if the answers were different.

Completely missed that point.

"at the start of the XXX phase" I believe means before all you other stuff you do normaly. If we were limiting psycic power to 1 per phase Mephy could not cast his 3 powers unlease rage and Sang, sword power... and Two psychers wouldn't have a roll off to see who gets to use his power "first".

I see no reason why two libbys in a unit could not cast 2 MoH on a single model.

Libby #1 casts MoH on self , Libby gains 3 attacks, libby now has 5 attacks...
libby #2 casts MoH on libby #1, libby gains 3 attacks, libby now has 8 attacks..

There is no stacking involved, just simple math.

Camarodragon wrote:"at the start of the XXX phase" I believe means before all you other stuff you do normaly. If we were limiting psycic power to 1 per phase Mephy could not cast his 3 powers unlease rage and Sang, sword power... and Two psychers wouldn't have a roll off to see who gets to use his power "first".

I see no reason why two libbys in a unit could not cast 2 MoH on a single model.

Libby #1 casts MoH on self , Libby gains 3 attacks, libby now has 5 attacks...
libby #2 casts MoH on libby #1, libby gains 3 attacks, libby now has 8 attacks..

There is no stacking involved, just simple math.

^ this