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.

 jegsar wrote:

 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.

The permission for the same power to stack is given by the casting and resolving of the second power.

Yes Rigeld but I want Nos or Hyv to answer that question.

Why? Why ignore my answer?

Oh i thought you were on my side nvm. In that case, i agree that is why the sentence is there. However following the logic that

The permission for the same power to stack is given by the casting and resolving of the second power.

then the sentence is not needed and back to being worthless.

So i agree that the sentence if giving permission as you suggest for different powers to stack. Now please find where it gives permission for the same power to stack and resolving a power is not the same as stacking.

Nothing is allowed.
A exists
you can do A
B exists expanding A
C exists expanding A
You can do B.
No where does it say you can do C.

Expend warp charge. Test leadership. Resolve power. There's your permission. Nothing stated anywhere prevents the same power from effecting the same unit twice, except specifically prohibited effects.

Like it's been said multiple times "different powers are cumulative" is a logically different statement than "same powers are not cumulative". As I tried to illustrate in my comparison.

I have $1 in my pocket (warp charge). I can spend it on food (psychic powers). I am allowed to eat different food (different powers). I can eat apples and oranges for lunch (different powers).

Nothing in there prevents me from eating 2 apples if I buy one and someone else buys one for me.

And another example
I have a graphics card, I buy a second graphics card, they only work together with SLI... otherwise they both exist but do not stack computing power. (SLI is permission in my example)

So i agree that the sentence if giving permission as you suggest for different powers to stack. Now please find where it gives permission for the same power to stack and resolving a power is not the same as stacking.

Where is my permission? I am looking for a quote. Most example of stacking from the same thing especially are not allowed and the ones that are, are very clearly stated that they are allowed.

One side is interpretting "different powers stack"

as identical powers stack,

the other is saying it means identical powers do not stack

the permisson to CAST the same power is NOT permission to STACK that same power,

you can cast stealth on a unit more then once, that does not mean it stacks,

every other codex states permission to stack powers, ie chaos, and even GK, MotT states it stacks, all these things have permission to stack, because it explicitly gives permission to stack (even though you already have permission to CAST)

in every case of stacking permission is given explicitly, since in this case permission to STACK is not given, you cannot stack (not cast, stop confusing the two or you concede your point)

you do not need permission to NOT stack identitcal powers,

you DO need permission to stack identical powers, which is NOT given by being able to CAST the identical power multiple times, stealth can be CAST multiple times, that does NOT mean it STACKs,
hence your permission to CAST is NOT permission to stack

Your stance is flawed because stealth is a USR granted by the shrouding. USR's are specifically blocked from stacking.

I have permission to cast and resolve psychic powers on a unit. Thats my permission for stacking.



I am allowed to do A with my first psyker.

My second psyker also has A. I am allowed to cast and resolve this power on any legal target.


The unit that I did A to with my first psyker is a legal target. Therefor, I have permission to resolve another instance of A upon it.

Then why was there an FAQ on HH stacking before the most recent FAQ came out? Since it's so clear?

Redundancy matters not when discussing RAW. The "why" would be RAI.

RAW, you can use any power if you follow the rules for timing, targeting, and resolution. RAW, there is no denial of using hammer hand multiple times on the same unit.

Fine RAW, you have +1 strength for casting HH.
You cast it again, you have +1 strength for casting HH.
If you were strength 4, you are now strength 5.

It doesn't say it has an additional +1 strength just that it has +1 strength. So sorry maybe some other psychic powers like Symphony of Pain or Gift of Contagion stack (they directly state that they do) but having +1 strength twice is not the same as having +2 strength. This goes back to having two graphics cards doesn't double your graphics ability for any one situation.

Same idea with armor saves. Just because you have multiple saves, they don't stack unless they directly state they do. You still only use one.

Wrong. If that were the case, the wording would be "a unit under the effects of one or more hammer hands receives +1 str".

Armor saves specifically state you only take one and it's always your best.

Psychic powers have no such restriction, not even hammer hand.

Easysauce - you have already conceded, as you utterly failed to provide one single RULE to back up your position.

Your argument is, strictly, how you would play it / houserule, so please follow the tenets and mark it as such.

Jegsar - casting is done in sequence. I start as S4, and cast. I am now S5. I cast again, and I MUST go to S6 because otherwise I have broken a rule. Indisputable. You ar emissing that the rule never says "unmodified", or "1 or more".

AGain, provide an actual rules based argument that shows that the permission gained in general is overruled. Until you can do so, your argument is invalid as it relies on making a logical leap entirely unsupported by the rules, whereas we are just following the written, clear rules.

yeah kind of pointless saying you have blanket permission to stack every power, when GW RAW specifically states when powers stack with themselves,

resolving a power, is NOT stacking it, again you keep confusing being able to CAST the power, and being able to STACK the power.

you are saying that EVERY single power stacks with every other power, which is NOT in the rule book.

RAW is "different powers stack"

this neither confirms nor denies that identical powers stack, but it is only permission given to stack different powers.

again, you keep using permission to CAST as permission to STACK

you are given permission to cast, you are NOT given permission to stack, since this is a permissive rule book (IE thye do not make a rule prohibiting EVERY action, they make rules permitting actions)

since you have no permission to stack, you cannot stack,

stop saying permission to CAST is the same as permission to stack, because that is not RAW, despite not being able to STACK USR's like stealth, you can still CAST them multiple times (on the same unit to no effect)
cast=/=stack


if you are going to claim that ALL psychic powers stack with all other powers (not just hammer hand)
you need permission from the rules, which as already proven, is not given, you are only given permission to stack different powers.

being given permission to cast powers, is not permission to stack, saying it is is simply wrong

Sigh.

Logic fail there, or simple reading comprehension fail.

1) We did not say we have blanket to stack every power; as we repeeatedly point out some powers deny stacking. Hammerhand, as pointed out and you are incapable of addressing otherwise, does not do so.

"point" refuted.

2) GW RAW states that different powers stack. This is now when "powers" stack, as this is a specific statement. You are making YET ANOTHER logical fallacy, the exact same one you keep getting told about.

"point" refuted

3) Stop repeating something that is. not. the. argument.

4) Please, provide a rules quote. You have entirely failed to do so, and have AGAIN conceded the argument.

simply repeating "I can cast it, therfore I can stack it"
does not make it true,
casting, and stacking are two different things entirely,

not to mention the for stacking arguement has gone from
"GK rules specifically state it can"(false)
to "there is no rule prohibiting it"(there doesnt need to be, there needs to be a rule ENABLING it)

so your arguement keeps skipping around.

RAW is "different powers stack"

therefor, different powers stack,
end of story,
you need permission to stack identical powers
no permission is given in the book, there is no RAW saying "identical powers stack"

the book does not need to say identical powers do not stack to give permission to NOT stack them
the book needs to say identical powers DO stack to give permission to stack them

Sigh.

Argue the point, not just your made up argument. You have constructed a strawman (I didnt argue that GK rules state they stack explicitly - if you disagree do something constructive this thread and quote it) for a start - yet anotehr fallacy

Is there something in the very simple HH rules you find difficult to understand? The rule requires you to add 1 to the models Strength.

The models strength after the first casting is (say) 5, Where is your PERMISSION to restrict the secodn castings effect?

Rule, page and paragraph please. If you continue to make up arguments, fail to provide rules despite the 20th time of asking and just, in general, repeat the same tired argument, that has been refuted at every turn, you're on ignore as it is quite frankly not worth responding.

Youre not arguing RAW. You are simply arguing your own idea of how the rules are written. I

The unit has +1 strength. Well yeah, it's got +1 strength.

All models in the unit ... have +1 strength...

Since +1 strength is not defined by English we can say. All models in the unit have an Object. Cast again, All models in the unit have an Object. It doesn't say, all models in the unit now have 2 objects.

I realize AS specifically states that so since we aren't taking the ruling on armor saves to apply to psychic powers i don't see how we can take "reminder text" (you are saying it is reminder text, i am saying it is rules) on two psychic powers on one page to apply to all of the psychic powers on that same page.

This example comes from the psychic powers in the CSM rulebook. Once again, if you have the BRB in front of you (I don't so I don't know if there is a rule that says they can or cannot but it is very much implied that they cannot without permission based on the CSM codex) please find a quote where it says that they stack.

Argument is that Symphony of Pain and Gift of contagion can stack but Hysterical Frenzy cannot stack since it is missing the text giving it permission to stack.

Permission to cast and resolve something twice is not the same as permission to have the effects stack. There are other cases of casting a psychic power that can resolve but will have no effect at all.

As a side note, while i know we are arguing RAW here when someone asks a question and they aren't rules lawyering they want to know how to play it in there game. If someone posted (before the FAQ) what toughness do I use in a challenge the answer should have been the characters toughness regardless of the errors in writing the book. It's a very obvious error and should be RAW, now it is. In this case the only error is leaving out the word ONLY in a copy and pasted sentence where they only replaced the noun.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, reread what you are saying.

You have made a claim that permission to do A means that B is not allowed. Logically you have no argument


\quote]

I am NOT saying permission to do A means you cannot do B,

you are saying permission to do A means you CAN do B

all I am saying

is that we HAVE permission to do A (stack different powers) there for we can do it


we have not been given permission to do B (stack identical powers) hence why we cannot do it.

A has no effect on B,

And for everyone telling easy to provide a rules quote, PROVIDE A QUOTE THAT EFFECTS OF A RESOLVED POWER MUST DO SOMETHING OR THAT EFFECTS OF THE SAME RESOLVED POWER ALWAYS STACK.

It doesn't say additional. You state a fact. I have a object. Therefore I now have the object. You make the same statement again. For it to be true i must only have that object I do not need a second one of the same object to be true. The object is "+1 strength"

PS right now I am keeping this English. I could move to symbolic logic and truth tables to prove tat I don't need +2 strength to make both of those statement true.

Once again, this is RAW, RAW also said challenges use majority toughness and that wraith guard don't do anything in the game. Also that stupid thing with the Doom and that it doesn't actually cause wounds.
It's implied Doom does wounds, Wraith Guard can still stuff, and you used the other models toughness. RAW also states you have +1 strength not that you add one to your previous strength.

and @Easy, i got this, when you say something like "(I didnt argue that GK rules state they stack explicitly - if you disagree do something constructive this thread and quote it)" it discredits yourself and me by relation as no where does it state GK powers stack. It used to state this in the FAQ but that was removed.

there is no rule ENABLING blanker identical stacking,

just like there is no rule disallowing blanket identical stacking,


the LACK OF A RULE for something, inheritly means you cannot do it.


if you cannot quote the rule that allows you to stack identical powers, then you cannot do it,

non existant rules do not enable anything

so quote me the rule that says "identical powers stack"

not the one that lets me CAST powers, because you can CAST stealth multiple times on a unit, that does not mean stealth stacks

argueing the same, false, pretense that being allowed to cast the same power on a target is blanket permission to STACK that power with itself is logical fallacy.

 jegsar wrote:

Permission to cast and resolve something twice is not the same as permission to have the effects stack.

Sure it is.

Are you saying a unit with two lascannons cannot resolve two penetrating hits on vehicles? They both fire different weapons, but weapons can damage vehicles if they hit.

If a strike squad has a warp charge and an attached grand master has a warp charge, they assault, they are both allowed to attempt to use the power and resolve the power if successful. What rule (quote pls) stops that from happening?

what rule quote please allows you to stack the psychic powers?
forgetting that stealth specifically states it doesn't stack with itself.
Effect A states you have stealth.
Effect B states, you have stealth.

Total effect, you have Stealth.

You have +1 strength.
you have +1 strength.
Total effect, you have +1 strength.

It doesn't say unmodified strength but it also doesn't say modified strength. Also whenever anything effects a characteristic you recalculate characteristics as states under multiple modifiers on page 2.

Now you have +1 strength
You have +2 strength

Total effect, you have +1 strength and +2 strength. Resolved you have +3 strength.

Those are not the same, that i two different objects therefore... you must of them both for the statement to be true.

If it said "a unit gains one additional strength at the time of casting" I would agree with your logic. But it just states you have +1 strength.

Another way of wording is, "Add 1 to the CURRENT strength of all models in the unit"

Stacking powers is inherently permitted in resolving the power's effect.

"At the time of casting" is a part of resolution. You cannot move to another power until you fully resolve the first.

So cast hammerhand (successfully) str4 +1 = str5. Resolved.
Cast hammerhand with an independant character in the same unit str5 + 1 = Str6. Resolved.

What rule (you still haven't quoted) stops either or both from happening or being resolved.

Easysauce - "you are saying permission to do A means you CAN do B "

No, we have not. Again, comprehension fail OR you are just knowingly creating another strawman.

This is very, very clear. On ignore now.


You cast the power, you are now S5. Jegsar - find the rule saying that the second casting does not result in S6. Bear in mind these castings are sequential
Your break down breaks the rule, as you have not added the strength to the model.

Model A is S4+1 = S5
Model A is then S5+1 = S6

You are wrong, remain wrong and have absolutely no ruels argument. Provide one.

In essence - you are not resolving the power before moving on. Provide a rules quote that allows you to do this. You can move to logic if you like, however currently your attempts at abstracting havent actually abstracted the same situation.

You have had plenty of chances to find a rules quote that states you do not resolve one power and then the next, so I assume you cannot find one.

It is not at the time of casting though. It's at the time of calculating.

Senario
Power A, doubles strength
Power B, +1 stregnth
Power C, -1 strength
Base strength 4.
First we cast power B.
Then A
then C

Your logic means we get (4+1)*2-1=9
RAW we get 4*2+1-1=8. (Page 2 BRB)

Now HH states that it gets applied first always so it would be 9 but that doesn't have anything to do what my point.

This calculation is done every time you need to check what the strength is, not when the power is cast.
Now using English and symbolic logic.
At the time of calculating you have the following statements.
1)You have +1 strength.
2)You have double strength.
3)You have -1 strength.
4)You have +1 strength. (lets say you casted power B twice)

Calculation:
base 4.
effect 2, doubles strength.
current 8.
Effect 1, (you have 1+ strength) current 9 (This also makes effect 4 true)
effect 3, -1 strength
current 8.

Easy is saying, it states you can do B...
then is asking where does it state you can do A. If you need permission to do B or C or D or E then you must also need permission to do A.

For an example of a power that does not stack with itself, see the Eldar Werlock power "Enhance". Just for fun, it specifically states it does not stack with itself.

Enhance is not a psychic power... good try though.

It absolutely is. One that's always active and requires no test or warp charge.

Yes it is.

Q: What Psychic Mastery Level is a Warlock? (p27)
A: Mastery Level 0 – Warlocks don’t need Warp Charge to
activate their powers, as they are always on.

The effects of multiple Enhance powers are not cumulative.

Nope, it a "Warlock Power", notice how the farseer entry says "Farseer Psychic Powers" and warlocks just say "Warlock Powers" also that was written in 4th edition.

Frankly if you want to use that to say that they do stack then I would say the 6th ed CSM codex that gives permission to stack would override that and mean that cannot stack as it is newer.