Switch Theme:

Psychic stacking GK style  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

The general baseline is that all powers stack with each other.

You would need specific language saying identical powers are NOT cumulative for the status quo to be altered, due to this being a permissive ruleset.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

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

There does not need to be something that specifically says that because we are given permission to cast a psychic power, then we are given permission for a different psyker to cast the same power on the same target.

Nothing disallows this therefore by default stacking is allowed via the Psychic power rules.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Aglobalthreat wrote:

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.



No, that is NOT what this argument is based on. The argument is based on HAVING PERMISSION to cast the power more than once on the same target, the psychic power itself working perfectly well being cast multiple times, and nothing disallowing it from working

We have, repeatedly and irrefutably, shown permission. Find a rule against it.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Dark Angels Devastator





Las Vegas, NV

 DeathReaper wrote:
 Aglobalthreat wrote:
But is there a line that says same powers are cumulative?

There does not need to be something that specifically says that because we are given permission to cast a psychic power, then we are given permission for a different psyker to cast the same power on the same target.

Nothing disallows this therefore by default stacking is allowed via the Psychic power rules.


Yes you are given permission to cast the same power by multiple units, that does not permit them to stack, go ahead and waste your warp charge all you want.

The only part that mentions stacking is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Some powers "State otherwise" that they are cumulative. Hammerhand does not and has not been FAQd to "State otherwise".

I love how you choose to completely ignore the other half of my posts, please tell me why some powers say that they are cumulative within their specific ruleset and others do not?

Maybe its a lack of GW updating rules... But based on all the other psychic powers and how they are worded and how it does not say anywhere that same powers are cumulative (its supposedly just assumed) I believe it needs to be FAQd in order to stack.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 Aglobalthreat wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 Aglobalthreat wrote:
But is there a line that says same powers are cumulative?

There does not need to be something that specifically says that because we are given permission to cast a psychic power, then we are given permission for a different psyker to cast the same power on the same target.

Nothing disallows this therefore by default stacking is allowed via the Psychic power rules.


Yes you are given permission to cast the same power by multiple units, that does not permit them to stack, go ahead and waste your warp charge all you want.

Citation needed, I have shown permission to cast (Lets say hammerhand) on a unit twice from two different sources, Hammerhand gives the unit +1 Strength, two castings, following normal math, would give +2 strength.
The only part that mentions stacking is "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Some powers "State otherwise" that they are cumulative. Hammerhand does not and has not been FAQd to "State otherwise".

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)

I love how you choose to completely ignore the other half of my posts, please tell me why some powers say that they are cumulative within their specific ruleset and others do not?

GW's inconsistent writing/ Some codexes are way out of date.
Maybe its a lack of GW updating rules... But based on all the other psychic powers and how they are worded and how it does not say anywhere that same powers are cumulative (its supposedly just assumed) I believe it needs to be FAQd in order to stack
You would be incorrect, as I have shown permission to cast hammerhand on the same target unit. It does not need to say "same powers are cumulative" the +1 to a stat does that for them.

Nothing restricts either power so they both have their effect, which is +1 Strength each for a total of +2 Strength.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 07:52:41


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Aglobalthreat - you have ignored that permission HAS been given, because +1S + +1S == +2S. If you disagree, please show some actual rules.

If you continue to fail to provide a rules backing, you have conceded you are considering your argument a houserule.
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





So what i gathered from this thread is there are 2 sides

Group A) The same power can stack
Group B) Only different powers can stack

Group A decided that the sentence talking about different powers doesn't mean anything and can be ignored.

Group B is stating that the sentence means that [only] different powers can stack since explicit permission is given for this but not for the same power.

Which is a bigger leap? Ignoring a sentence completely or taking the sentence to imply "[only] different blessings stack"

I say that you should not ignore any sentence unless it has been FAQ'd. Since this is a permissive ruleset and you are only giving direct permission for A but not direct permission for B then you can only do A. Since the sentence is there and should not be ignored it is implied that the same powers don't stack.

Occam's razor agrees with the simpler answer of that 1 word was left out instead of an entire sentence added that causes more confusion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 15:23:32


Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




We arent ignoring it; we're using it as a reminder.

Your conclusion is flawed. WE HAVE PERMISSION to stack powers. This is fact. You do not need explicit permission to do A if you have general permission to do {A,B,....,Z}

Do you have explicit permission to deploy inside a ruin on the 3rd level on the east wall? No, but you do have GENERAL permission to deploy anywhere in your zone. Anywhere includes this location.

Same situation.

Please, provide a rules argument that actually doesnt just attack the end point - break the chain down, or concede.
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





OK, why include the word "different" if you could just say, the effects of psychic powers stack?

You are choosing to ignore all meaning behind the sentence, a reminder still has no meaning as it is just a reminder.

The only flaw in both arguments comes down to 1 sentence so that is the only part of the chain that needs to be looked at, without the sentence you would be correct. Assuming this sentence isn't a waste of ink you are incorrect.

As a side note most reminders are stated as such with either parentheses or set apart from the main set of rules in another way.

Example of a reminder: page 69. WITCHFIRE
Manifesting witchfire counts as firing a Assault weapon (unless otherwise noted).
Notice the reminder in there, it doesn't need to be in there but they put in in parentheses to remind you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 15:45:53


Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 jegsar wrote:

As a side note most reminders are stated as such with either parentheses or set apart from the main set of rules in another way.


Yup. This one doesn't.


Seriously though, we have permission for two psykers to cast Hammerhand once each. Whete's the rule that magically tells you to ignore the second Hammerhand? In fact, one could argue that, since every individual application of Hammerhand applies before other modifiers, there is never a Hammerhand active on the target unit for the purpouses of Hammerhand stacking.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Jegsar - we have permission. Find where permission is denied

If you cannot post the actual rule - real, actual words this time, not what yoU THINK it should say, you have conceded you are now arguing a houserule / HIWPI / "RAI", and as such are required to post such under this forums tenets.

Attack the actual argument, which you have failed to do, or concede.
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





The sentence that states different psychic powers stack...
The only leap group B takes is that this sentence implies that the same psychic powers do not stack.

Trust me, I play CSM, often with 2 lvl 3 bio psykers, I pray they do stack, enfeeble is hilarious when combined with cultists/botlers.

A better argument for group A is that since they removed the old FAQ about HH stacking in the new FAQ means that the rules permit it however that could also be a change (nerf), similar to Eldar psychic powers.

Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Group A makes no leap whatsoever. There are no gaps in logic that lead to psychic powers stacking by default.

Group B makes a leap, therefore is less supportable

THank you for conceding you cannot argue the rules argument presented by it.
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Group A makes a big leap, they choose that a sentence does not exist, or rather it as zero impact on the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1 easily implied word is a smaller leap then removing an entire sentence, therefore by your logic Group A should concede.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/29 16:02:49


Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





A psyker with warp charge can cast a power.

A psyker using hammer hand adds +1 str to himself and his unit.

Nothing prevents this from happening multiple times.

"Different powers are cumulative" is NOT the same statement as "Same powers are not cumulative".


My blog - Battle Reports, Lists, Theory, and Hobby:
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/
 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Then answer me this, what is the purpose of the sentence in question?

Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 jegsar wrote:
Group A makes a big leap, they choose that a sentence does not exist, or rather it as zero impact on the game.
1 easily implied word is a smaller leap then removing an entire sentence, therefore by your logic Group A should concede.


This isnt removing an entire sentence - it is treating it as a reminder.

We have made no leaps at all - we are reading the sentence exactly as written, which is that it MAKES NO MENTION of the same power, so it HAS NO POWER over same powers and their ability to stack. That isnt "making a leap", that is known as "actually reading what is written, not what you would want there to be written"

Thank you for, yet again, failing to approach the actual argument and your subsequent concession. It is accepted
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.

hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand

hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand

the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.

it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.

The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Blaktoof - please provide rules citations for any of what you posted, as it does not follow the rules in the rulebook.

It has permission to stack through the power stating to add 1S, and basic maths telling you what happens when you add 1 and 1 together.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





blaktoof wrote:
last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.

hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand

hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand

the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.

it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.

The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.


Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook

If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.

My blog - Battle Reports, Lists, Theory, and Hobby:
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 hyv3mynd wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.

hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand

hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand

the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.

it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.

The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.


Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook

If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.


As long as you have permission to eat apples in the first place (which we obviously do in this example, just clarifying).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 16:37:51


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Nos "or rather it as zero impact on the game."
Yes, you are choosing to treat it as a reminder therefore having zero impact on the game.
Since no one can provide where it says it CAN stack or where it CANNOT stack... it's not clear cut and in up in there air.

There is a sentence that's purpose/meaning is in question.
At the moment without FAQ or something giving general stacking allowance this is not clear cut. For the most part in the game stacking is NOT generally allowed from the same entity (The entity in this case in the power not the psyker).

Notice the reminder is separated from the text (same as this reminder).

So if someone has a searchable copy of the BRB please search for "stacking", "stack" and "+1" as one of those will lead you to more rules. If no one does this, i will do this in about 7 hours when i get home.

I am not questioning what 1+1 means, I am simply questioning the assumption that the sentence is of zero value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 hyv3mynd wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.

hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand

hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand

the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.

it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.

The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.


Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook

If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.


As long as you have permission to eat apples in the first place (which we obviously do in this example, just clarifying).
Notice how he puts the reminder here also.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 16:45:14


Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 jegsar wrote:
Nos "or rather it as zero impact on the game."
Yes, you are choosing to treat it as a reminder therefore having zero impact on the game.
Since no one can provide where it says it CAN stack or where it CANNOT stack... it's not clear cut and in up in there air.

There is a sentence that's purpose/meaning is in question.
At the moment without FAQ or something giving general stacking allowance this is not clear cut. For the most part in the game stacking is NOT generally allowed from the same entity (The entity in this case in the power not the psyker).

Notice the reminder is separated from the text (same as this reminder).

So if someone has a searchable copy of the BRB please search for "stacking", "stack" and "+1" as one of those will lead you to more rules. If no one does this, i will do this in about 7 hours when i get home.

I am not questioning what 1+1 means, I am simply questioning the assumption that the sentence is of zero value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 hyv3mynd wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
last edition it stacked only because the faq gave it permission.

hammerhand cast by psyker 1 is hammerhand

hammerhand cast by psyker 2 is hammerhand

the power is the same in both cases, it does not matter that it was cast by different psykers.

it does not have permission to stack via the codex, or codex faq currently.

The RB says same powers are not cumulatuve.. The power is obviously the same as itself.


Your last statement is a lie, it never appears in the rulebook

If I have permission to eat and apple and an orange for lunch, nobody has denied me permission to eat two apples as long as I have the money to purchase them.


As long as you have permission to eat apples in the first place (which we obviously do in this example, just clarifying).
Notice how he puts the reminder here also.


Just to remind you of what I said earlier, a reminder or clarification doesn't have to be in parentheses to be a reminder.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





Agreed, but usually (a majority of the time, normally, commonly, etc...) is set apart in some way. As i said it isn't clear cut either way.

Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 jegsar wrote:
Agreed, but usually (a majority of the time, normally, commonly, etc...) is set apart in some way. As i said it isn't clear cut either way.


Except it is. You have permission to cast Hammerhand twice. Each cast has the effect of increasing the strength of the unit by 1. Nothing overrules your permission to cast it twice, so you do and apply the effect of each of the psychic powers. X+1+1=X+2. There is no rule telling you to make an exception from the normal rules, so you don't.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





As I said, I am not questioning what 1+1 means, I am simply questioning the assumption that the sentence is of zero value.

Reasoning behind this is another majority of modifiers caused by the same rule/entity/power etc... do not stack or have been changed to explicitly stack. Example of the top of my head, USRs.

So far this sentence would be in the minority of two major majorities.

As I also stated, I don't have a searchable version of the book and when i get home I will search through the book for all uses of the word stack, stacks, and "+1" hoping one of them will lead me to a rule that goes one way or another.

You have permission to cast the power twice on the same unit, no argument, but you can't produce explicit rules one way or another if it stacks. Show me the rule that says modifiers from the same effect stack in general and I will concede my argument.

Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jegsar wrote:

You have permission to cast the power twice on the same unit, no argument, but you can't produce explicit rules one way or another if it stacks. Show me the rule that says modifiers from the same effect stack in general and I will concede my argument.


Underlined the permission. The rest you have backwards.

If you have two psykers with warp charge available, who both use the power and succeed in their leadership test, you inherently have permission to resolve both powers cumulatively. You would need an explicit restriction to disallow the stacking at that point. And again "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative".

My blog - Battle Reports, Lists, Theory, and Hobby:
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/
 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





And you are stating a rule that modifiers from the same cause/entity/noun stack, as a general rule. Please show me that quote. A majority of modifiers from the same cause/entity/noun that I aware of do NOT stack and have specific text for the ones that do. If you cannot produce this quote then wait about 6 hours for when I get home to produce a quote that will support my argument.

Resolving power does not mean it's effects will actually work. Same way you can shoot a bolter at a landraider but it will not do anything.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 18:12:22


Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





jegsar wrote:Then answer me this, what is the purpose of the sentence in question?


rigeld2 wrote: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?


That's why. As I said earlier.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Twisting Tzeentch Horror





 hyv3mynd wrote:
And again "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative".
Notice it gives permission for different powers but not permission for the same power. This is a permissive ruleset and that means you need permission.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes Rigeld but I want Nos or Hyv to answer that question.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/29 18:14:49


Mess with the best, Die like the rest. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: