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.

yes it stacks. because they are matt wards grey knights, and therefore awsome and legendary.

hammerhand up already.

 Pyriel- wrote:
No problem korghan. I kinda wondered why you gave me a hard time over the +1strenght

I am merely asking about the stacking of USRs in general such as stealth since some of my friends keep telling me that I can stack multiple stealths and some say I cant and the rulebook says you cannot benefit from a USR more then once thus a double shrouding librarians are pretty useless (Imo).

Yea sorry about that again. I jump right on a soap box when people start complaining about armies being OP. as said you can multi-cast shrouding but it is useless.

And yes, DarthSpader, we know we're awesome. Thank you for the compliment! So nice of you

@Darthspader. you said hammerhand is up already. mind adding a link?

 Larotonda1984 wrote:
@Darthspader. you said hammerhand is up already. mind adding a link?

Re-read what he said. He did not say "hammerhand is up already"

He said:

 DarthSpader wrote:
hammerhand up already.

wow... thanks for being rude... Feel better?

 Larotonda1984 wrote:
wow... thanks for being rude... Feel better?

What about my post was rude

I simply stated that you should re-read his post, as you misquoted him.

You can stack the mods of different blessings
You cannot stack the mod of the same blessing cast by a different caster. Notice where two words come in to play in those to sentences.

Stack DIFFERENT blessings
Stack SAME blessings cast by DIFFERENT psykers.

The word is used in a different spot in the sentence and therefore shouldn't really be confused. They do not stack. There are multiple blessings that do similar things that can stack that is what they are clarifying by that sentence..

i may be wrong here, but a quote requires quotation marks... i asked a question based on my interpretation of what he wrote. you felt the need to repost his and my reply, tell me to Re-read his post, with a quotation of your own. the entire tone of your reply was rude and rather insulting. if you felt i misinterpreted his post a simple, "he was just being funny, there is no actual hammer hand rule posting." would have been sufficient. instead you felt the need to speak to me as if i was infearior. that about answer your question?

 Larotonda1984 wrote:
i may be wrong here, but a quote requires quotation marks... i asked a question based on my interpretation of what he wrote.

By saying "you said" you were saying that Darthspader said those words.

You posted this:

 Larotonda1984 wrote:
@Darthspader. you said hammerhand is up already. mind adding a link?

You were talking to Darthspader, and by saying "you said Hammerhand is up already" it means that you think Darthspader said "Hammerhand is up already" which of course, is not true, as Darthspader said "Hammerhand up already" (A statement saying to take an action and cast Hammerhand already, Similar to "Suit up" means go an put on a suit).

That "is", makes the sentence different.

you felt the need to repost his and my reply, tell me to Re-read his post, with a quotation of your own. the entire tone of your reply was rude and rather insulting. if you felt i misinterpreted his post a simple, "he was just being funny, there is no actual hammer hand rule posting." would have been sufficient. instead you felt the need to speak to me as if i was infearior. that about answer your question?

It really doesn't. I said that you should re-read what Darthspader said. I did not want you to misquote him.

 jegsar wrote:
You can stack the mods of different blessings
You cannot stack the mod of the same blessing cast by a different caster. Notice where two words come in to play in those to sentences.

Stack DIFFERENT blessings
Stack SAME blessings cast by DIFFERENT psykers.

The word is used in a different spot in the sentence and therefore shouldn't really be confused. They do not stack. There are multiple blessings that do similar things that can stack that is what they are clarifying by that sentence..

Can you cite where you got the 2nd sentence from? The one referencing SAME?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW you have permission to cast the same power from different sources onto the same target.

I am making a statement about english grammar.
Using a example sentence from someone who is arguing for using the "same power" i paraphrased to "same blessing" and how it contradicts what the brb sates.

It doesn't contradict whatsoever.

Find any rule anywhere in the rule book or FAQs that mentions the same blessing stacking. The only one I've ever found refers to different blessings. Perhaps you've found something else?

 jegsar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW you have permission to cast the same power from different sources onto the same target.

I am making a statement about english grammar.
Using a example sentence from someone who is arguing for using the "same power" i paraphrased to "same blessing" and how it contradicts what the brb sates.

I don't think the pro-stacking argument really rests on the definition of that BRB line at all. The pro-stacking camp is saying that they have permission to stack because they have permission to cast the power at a target and resolve the power. They are saying that line is meaningless - you already have blanket permission to cast different powers on the same target so stating it again is redundant and is done only for purposes of clarity.

You could make a RAI argument that there would be no reason for that line to exist unless the converse wasn't true (that you couldn't stack the same power on the one target) but that is solely RAI because you are already granted permission to cast the power on the same unit (no stipulations are supplied in the BRB) and so to not be able to stack the power there must be a line revoking that permission in this case. The line about effects of multiple different powers being cumulative does not state that the same power is not cumulative; none of the argument relies on this line, because you already have blanket permission to attempt to cast the same power twice on the same unit (it is the same case as attempting to cast the power once on the unit, repeated).

I find it difficult to even make a proper RAI argument here because the Psyker rules don't seem to draw any distinction between a psychic power template (a spell) and a manifested instance of a psychic power (a spellcast). They're both just referred to as "the psychic power."

so let me get this straight, a ML3 Librarian attached to a unit of GKs can cast HH once from the gks themselves, and the Librarian can cast HH twice and MotT once to give the entire unit S8? soooo why bother giving them hammers at all when you can get halberds at I6 S8 ap3?? all for what..25 (assuming a basic GK SS) points a model and a 200 point Libby?Heck throw a second IC in there and you can get S9...or is this all too good to be true?

A psyker can only cast any given Psychic power once.

 jegsar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
RAW you have permission to cast the same power from different sources onto the same target.

I am making a statement about english grammar.
Using a example sentence from someone who is arguing for using the "same power" i paraphrased to "same blessing" and how it contradicts what the brb sates.

I have, instead, been making an argument based onthe fact that the rule you keep quoting does not say *anything* about the same power; It is entirely 100% silent on the matter. As such it cannot be said to be a restriction - all it does is give permission in X case. Which is redundant, because you already have permission to cast the same power from different casters onto the same target, and unless the power itself prohibits stacking (explicitly or as a consequence of the pwoer; 2 x stealth == 1 x stealth as far as the rules are concerned) the pwoers must stack.

ah so the max strength from the HH+MotT combo is S7?

I keep seeing this word "blessing" being used. When did hammerhand get categorized as this?

 Goat wrote:
I keep seeing this word "blessing" being used. When did hammerhand get categorized as this?

Page 68, very last sentence under "Resolve Psychic Power". It then repeats itself, replacing "different powers" with "different blessings" and "different maledictions" under Blessings and Maledictions respectively.

Hammerhand s not a blessing, it does not have a type.

I think the key to all of this is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Now breaking down "multiple different" would mean more than one different psychic power so if you have Hammerhand and MOtT they are cumulative as they are different and if there happened to be a third (different than the last two) psychic power it would also be cumulative.

In the GK codex the rules for these psychic powers seem to coincide with what the BRB states, since MOtT specifically says that its effects are cumulative with HH.

If the intent for HH was to be cumulative with itself why was it not "stated otherwise" as the BRB rule says it should?

Edit: Furthermore I think looking at the Chaos psychic powers in how it specifically "states otherwise" the effects of multiple X are cumulative. Where X = specific psychic power by name. Until the GK psychic power is FAQd to read the same as that I will not allow it to stack.

 Aglobalthreat wrote:
I think the key to all of this is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Yes, this tells us that (different) Psychic powers are always cumulative, unless otherwise stated. Ie psychic power must state that "This power is not cumulative", for it not to be cumulative. In all other cases it is.

 Aglobalthreat wrote:
If the intent for HH was to be cumulative with itself why was it not "stated otherwise" as the BRB rule says it should?

Read that BRB line again. It is not stating what you think it is stating. In fact, it is stating a rule completely opposite of what you think it is stating.
You have for some reason changed the text in your mind to be "Effects of psychic powers are never cumulative, unless otherwise stated".

The reason that rule exists is to allow the following:

Psyker power A adds +1 STR.
Psyker power B adds +1 STR and +1 ATK.

1 STR was added by A - is it replaced by B therefore increasing STR by 1 or added by B therefore increasing STR by 2?

Luide wrote:

 Aglobalthreat wrote:
I think the key to all of this is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Yes, this tells us that (different) Psychic powers are always cumulative, unless otherwise stated. Ie psychic power must state that "This power is not cumulative", for it not to be cumulative. In all other cases it is.

 Aglobalthreat wrote:
If the intent for HH was to be cumulative with itself why was it not "stated otherwise" as the BRB rule says it should?

Read that BRB line again. It is not stating what you think it is stating. In fact, it is stating a rule completely opposite of what you think it is stating.
You have for some reason changed the text in your mind to be "Effects of psychic powers are never cumulative, unless otherwise stated".

Exalted, honoured and submitted to God for enshrinement as the 11th commandment. There's nothing saying HH doesn't stack so, by default, it does. How is this a 4-page debate?

As I see, the core of the problem is ---- what the "different" means.

As I think , if two powers share EXACTLY THE SAME NAME(further , have exactly the same effects ) ,they are NOT different powers.

But someone think that powers with different sources(eg. different casters) are different.

Maybe we should ask GW , how to tell the "different" powers.

Ian - no, that isnt the core of the debate. The core of the "debate" is that the rules allow HH to stack, 100%, by giving you permission to cast AND resolve the power.

Nothing else matters. There are no ruels that disallow it, there is permission to do it, and the line about "different..." is entirely redundnat.

ian_destiny wrote:
As I see, the core of the problem is ---- what the "different" means.

As I think , if two powers share EXACTLY THE SAME NAME(further , have exactly the same effects ) ,they are NOT different powers.

But someone think that powers with different sources(eg. different casters) are different.

Maybe we should ask GW , how to tell the "different" powers.

No, that's not the core of the debate at all - way to read 4 pages and learn nothing.
There's a sentence allowing different powers to stack.
We have permission to cast 2 of the same power. There is no restriction on them stacking. One side takes the "different" rule and leaps to the idea that if they specifically allowed different ones to stack, then same ones cannot. The other side makes no leaps at all and shows that there is no rule restricting stacking of the same power, therefore it stacks.

The issue is:
RAW says different powers stack.

People then think that also means (identical powers do not stack) Which, of course, is not true as the book does not say this anywhere.

It is a logical fallacy to equate the two. (Just because it explicitly states a permission on one thing does not mean a similar thing is restricted)

Then why does the chaos psychic powers say that they are cumulative with themselves if we supposedly already know this...

Hmm maybe GW is just making sure you know you can stack this power if its stated on the power and in BRB... oh wait its not stated in the BRB there is actually no ruling on it other than it saying different powers can stack.

Clarity, GW's ruleset is rife with language that is completely unnecessary and does nothing but repeat what you could already do.

But is there a line that says same powers are cumulative?

I would beg to reason that if not all psychic powers say they are cumulative with themselves and some do then maybe the ones that don't specify cumulative do not stack.

Since the BRB says nothing about it other than only different powers are cumulative and no where does it say same powers are cumulative I believe it needs to be FAQd and until then you should go by what the psychic power says.

The BRB says that if the psychic power does not fall into a category (Blessing, Malediction) the rules will explicitly explain how the power is used under its rule in the codex.

Under the rule for HH it does not say its cumulative but if you were to cast MotT which specifies in its rule its cumulative then that stacks.

This whole argument is based on the rules not saying that you cannot stack this power, flip side of that is that it doesn't say you can stack it anywhere as well.