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.

The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.
Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.

 jegsar wrote:
The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.

So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?

Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.

That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.

Section 1)

 grendel083 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.

So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?

The English language, If A always causes B, and B always causes C, A always causes C. This logic applies both to your questions about benefits and inheritance. It can also be written for psychics... A can cause B, B always causes C. When A causes B, A causes C. When a psyker casts hammerhand, the psyker blesses the units with +1 strength. Therefore C is a benefit of A when A causes B. (I have previously defined benefit)

Section 2)

 grendel083 wrote:

Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.

That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.

Not sure what you mean by 2/3s, I just know that unless the statement is inserted for zero value add, then it must have a purpose. Following my logic, that benefits cannot stack unless explicitly stated, it gives value add to the sentence. Further evidence is support by CSM codex page 71 where Symphony of pain and Gifts of Contagion contain text stating the effects are cumulative however Hysterical Frenzy does not. So my opinion is there is a reason the sentence is in there and your opinion is the sentence doesn't matter.
While i agree it's not 100% clear, to anyone that applies logic it makes it very clear.


Section 1 states psychic powers cannot stack.
Section 2 states that different psychic powers can stack.
CSM dex states that 2 specific psychic powers can stack with themselves.

Most general to most specific is how it is presented along with all other GW rules.
When checking to see what something falls under you check in reverse order.
Does the psychic power cover it, no check up to the next level.
Do rules for blessings cover it?
Is it a different power?
Is there anywhere that states i can do this?
All the way back up to psyker, where it states benefits don't stack.

So no I am reading that particular sentence as giving different psychic powers permission to stack, I don't however see a sentence that give the same psychic power to stack other then in the effects of a power in the CSM dex which certainly isn't the general rule otherwise it wouldn't need to be listed there. Notice how i following English, and basic symbolic logic, i game meaning to the sentence. Just me but if they bothered to put something there, even if it's a little tricky even obscure to figure out the reason that there normally is a reason.

So now youre claiming that HammerHand is a special rule?

Really - that is the level this has devolved to?

Given it specifically states that psychic powers *can* grant special rules, not *do*, you know this is not true.

Your claim is absurd, as you are claiming you cannot benefit from a special rule more than once; meaning (using your broken logic chain) that a psyker can only cast HH once, ever. After all, if Hammerhand IS a benefit of a special rule (it isnt, because your logic is flawed) then trying to cast it twice (in a game, or ever) would mean the psyker was "benefitting" from it more than once - which is not allowed

Psyker is a special rule. NOt everything that happens as a result of this special rule is a benefit, otherwise you are claiming that PotW is a benefit...

PotW is not an aid to you so it is not a benefit, I stated the definition of a benefit earlier.
Frankly I agree, RAW you can't benefit from psyker more then once, sounds about as stupid as them leaving out proper toughness values for challenges. Oh wait that happened, My logic stands as RAW regardless of how stupid the effect would be,

What is absurd is that they include many sentences that you are all just calling reminders, phrased differently, across different books, that all lead to the same thing.

Now if you can show me anywhere (other then a 4th ed codex, which also wasn't a psychic power back then) any quotes eluding to stating psychic powers are allowed to stack, then in a permissive system i must disagree.

It really does take into account for 99% of possible situations with explicit statements of what are you are allowed to do. No where does it say you can stack psychic powers.

You can disagree, but maths states you are wrong, as it has done since the start.

It doesn't tell you that you're allowed to shoot the same unit more than once. It doesn't have to, though, because there's already a blanket permission to shoot at stuff.

And, as nos said, under your interpretation you're only ever allowed to benefit from HH once a game because any further casts would be additional benefits from the same power, which you claim is not allowed.

You'd also only ever get the mastery level bonus to DtW! once, as subsequent uses of said rule would mean you get additional benefits from the same rule.

 jegsar wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.

So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?

The English language, If A always causes B, and B always causes C, A always causes C. This logic applies both to your questions about benefits and inheritance. It can also be written for psychics... A can cause B, B always causes C. When A causes B, A causes C. When a psyker casts hammerhand, the psyker blesses the units with +1 strength. Therefore C is a benefit of A when A causes B. (I have previously defined benefit)

If you try to apply Absolute Inheritance in this fashion, the game would break across the board. And still there is no reason why you would apply inheritance. Everything does not cause inheritance, so why use it if not told to? The rulebook doesn't say to apply it everywhere, so why do so?
Also A is only given permission to cause B if you want to go that route.
A can only cause B, B can cause C. A can never cause C.

 grendel083 wrote:

Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.

That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.

Not sure what you mean by 2/3s, I just know that unless the statement is inserted for zero value add, then it must have a purpose. Following my logic, that benefits cannot stack unless explicitly stated, it gives value add to the sentence. Further evidence is support by CSM codex page 71 where Symphony of pain and Gifts of Contagion contain text stating the effects are cumulative however Hysterical Frenzy does not. So my opinion is there is a reason the sentence is in there and your opinion is the sentence doesn't matter.
While i agree it's not 100% clear, to anyone that applies logic it makes it very clear.

Sorry should have been more clear.
There have been 3 possible interpretations of that sentence.
1). Different powers stack, no mention of same powers. Permission is granted to cast blessings, nothing restricts the number of times.
2). Different powers can be interpreted as different castings of the same power. If you have 2 identical cars, they are still different cars.
3). Different powers stack, therefore all others don't.

2 of the 3 interpretations support stacking. Personally I find the logic of 3 flawed, and support 2.
Please feel free to add more interpretations if I've missed any.

Section 1 states psychic powers cannot stack.
Section 2 states that different psychic powers can stack.
CSM dex states that 2 specific psychic powers can stack with themselves.

Most general to most specific is how it is presented along with all other GW rules.
When checking to see what something falls under you check in reverse order.
Does the psychic power cover it, no check up to the next level.
Do rules for blessings cover it?
Is it a different power?
Is there anywhere that states i can do this?
All the way back up to psyker, where it states benefits don't stack.

So no I am reading that particular sentence as giving different psychic powers permission to stack, I don't however see a sentence that give the same psychic power to stack other then in the effects of a power in the CSM dex which certainly isn't the general rule otherwise it wouldn't need to be listed there. Notice how i following English, and basic symbolic logic, i game meaning to the sentence. Just me but if they bothered to put something there, even if it's a little tricky even obscure to figure out the reason that there normally is a reason.

Following the nature of the permissive rule set
You're given permission to cast blessings. I'm sure we all agree on that. So we now have carpet permission on blessing units.
So we cast a blessing. Then we cast the same blessing from a different source. Can we cast blessings? Yes. Is there any restrictions implied on blessing the same unit twice? No.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
The benefit of a benefit is still a benefit, if only indirect.

So a House Rule then? No page number? Or rules support?

The English language, If A always causes B, and B always causes C, A always causes C. This logic applies both to your questions about benefits and inheritance. It can also be written for psychics... A can cause B, B always causes C. When A causes B, A causes C. When a psyker casts hammerhand, the psyker blesses the units with +1 strength. Therefore C is a benefit of A when A causes B. (I have previously defined benefit)

If you try to apply Absolute Inheritance in this fashion, the game would break across the board. And still there is no reason why you would apply inheritance. Everything does not cause inheritance, so why use it if not told to? The rulebook doesn't say to apply it everywhere, so why do so?
Also A is only given permission to cause B if you want to go that route.
A can only cause B, B can cause C. A can never cause C.

If i hire someone to kill you, I still caused your death even if I didn't pull the trigger. It might even be a direct cause, but it's at least indirect. The only thing in the book this breaks is the rule we are specifically talking about.

 grendel083 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

Now, please answer my question because I did answer the question to why that sentence is there.
I've yet to here a better reason for that sentence, actually I've yet to here any other reason that the sentence exists where it has value.

That was covered on page one actually.
I assume you're reading that sentence as "Same name Powers don't stack"?
That sentence isn't clear true, but 2/3 interpretations of it allow for stacking. The third is in the line above.

Not sure what you mean by 2/3s, I just know that unless the statement is inserted for zero value add, then it must have a purpose. Following my logic, that benefits cannot stack unless explicitly stated, it gives value add to the sentence. Further evidence is support by CSM codex page 71 where Symphony of pain and Gifts of Contagion contain text stating the effects are cumulative however Hysterical Frenzy does not. So my opinion is there is a reason the sentence is in there and your opinion is the sentence doesn't matter.
While i agree it's not 100% clear, to anyone that applies logic it makes it very clear.

Sorry should have been more clear.
There have been 3 possible interpretations of that sentence.
1). Different powers stack, no mention of same powers. Permission is granted to cast blessings, nothing restricts the number of times.
2). Different powers can be interpreted as different castings of the same power. If you have 2 identical cars, they are still different cars.
3). Different powers stack, therefore all others don't.

2 of the 3 interpretations support stacking. Personally I find the logic of 3 flawed, and support 2.
Please feel free to add more interpretations if I've missed any.

I'll revise number 1 to: "Different powers are allowed to stack." My question was WHY is it here? What is the value add of it? Why is this stated specifically

The effects of multiple Gift of Contagion arr cumulative

and

Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative.

but it is not stated under HYSTERICAL Frenzy? (all on page 71 from CSM dex.)

 grendel083 wrote:

Section 1 states psychic powers cannot stack.
Section 2 states that different psychic powers can stack.
CSM dex states that 2 specific psychic powers can stack with themselves.

Most general to most specific is how it is presented along with all other GW rules.
When checking to see what something falls under you check in reverse order.
Does the psychic power cover it, no check up to the next level.
Do rules for blessings cover it?
Is it a different power?
Is there anywhere that states i can do this?
All the way back up to psyker, where it states benefits don't stack.

So no I am reading that particular sentence as giving different psychic powers permission to stack, I don't however see a sentence that give the same psychic power to stack other then in the effects of a power in the CSM dex which certainly isn't the general rule otherwise it wouldn't need to be listed there. Notice how i following English, and basic symbolic logic, i game meaning to the sentence. Just me but if they bothered to put something there, even if it's a little tricky even obscure to figure out the reason that there normally is a reason.

Following the nature of the permissive rule set
You're given permission to cast blessings. I'm sure we all agree on that. So we now have carpet permission on blessing units.
So we cast a blessing. Then we cast the same blessing from a different source. Can we cast blessings? Yes. Is there any restrictions implied on blessing the same unit twice? No.

This is the only slightly unclear part and they are obviously not meant to stack. The logic was explained in section one about multiple benefits and how permission is strictly given for different powers and different entities to stack but explicit permission is not given for the same to stack. In fact no where in GW does anything stack with itself. (a unit firing is not a good example of this and it gives permission, "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." you can read the rest of the shooting phase to see now this works out.)

 jegsar wrote:
If i hire someone to kill you, I still caused your death even if I didn't pull the trigger. It might even be a direct cause, but it's at least indirect. The only thing in the book this breaks is the rule we are specifically talking about.

These word games serve no purpose, they can be written to serve any argument.
If I drive a friend to work, and he then kills you, did I kill you? You're applying an absolute of 'yes I did'.
Does everything suffer from from this form of absolute inheritance? No, so why are you applying it? What rule tells you to?

'll revise number 1 to: "Different powers are allowed to stack." My question was WHY is it here? What is the value add of it? Why is this stated specifically

The effects of multiple Gift of Contagion arr cumulative

and

Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative.

but it is not stated under HYSTERICAL Frenzy? (all on page 71 from CSM dex.)

The first two are Maledictions that cause multiple effects, the third is a Blessing that has a single effect. Maybe thats why they felt the need to add that note.
Just to correct your quote, my version at least says "Note that the effects of multiple...." It's a note, not a unique rule.

This is the only slightly unclear part and they are obviously not meant to stack. The logic was explained in section one about multiple benefits and how permission is strictly given for different powers and different entities to stack but explicit permission is not given for the same to stack. In fact no where in GW does anything stack with itself. (a unit firing is not a good example of this and it gives permission, "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." you can read the rest of the shooting phase to see now this works out.)

Why is explicit permission needed? Any particular reason?
As it stands we have permission to stack, and nothing to restrict it. You say this is obviously wrong, but where is the rule?

 grendel083 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
If i hire someone to kill you, I still caused your death even if I didn't pull the trigger. It might even be a direct cause, but it's at least indirect. The only thing in the book this breaks is the rule we are specifically talking about.

These word games serve no purpose, they can be written to serve any argument.
If I drive a friend to work, and he then kills you, did I kill you? You're applying an absolute of 'yes I did'.
Does everything suffer from from this form of absolute inheritance? No, so why are you applying it? What rule tells you to?

'll revise number 1 to: "Different powers are allowed to stack." My question was WHY is it here? What is the value add of it? Why is this stated specifically

The effects of multiple Gift of Contagion arr cumulative

and

Note that the effects of more than one Symphony of Pain are cumulative.

but it is not stated under HYSTERICAL Frenzy? (all on page 71 from CSM dex.)

The first two are Maledictions that cause multiple effects, the third is a Blessing that has a single effect. Maybe thats why they felt the need to add that note.
Just to correct your quote, my version at least says "Note that the effects of multiple...." It's a note, not a unique rule.

This is the only slightly unclear part and they are obviously not meant to stack. The logic was explained in section one about multiple benefits and how permission is strictly given for different powers and different entities to stack but explicit permission is not given for the same to stack. In fact no where in GW does anything stack with itself. (a unit firing is not a good example of this and it gives permission, "Any model that is found to be in range of at least one visible enemy model in the target unit can fire." you can read the rest of the shooting phase to see now this works out.)

Why is explicit permission needed? Any particular reason?
As it stands we have permission to stack, and nothing to restrict it. You say this is obviously wrong, but where is the rule?

Indirectly yes and if i knew i would be an accessory to murder...
The same logic you are using that makes you assume you can stack is the same logic that allows me to do there. There is nothing preventing it.

1) So does the Designer "NOTE" that defines a rule about the definition of same marines in the CSM dex.
2) The second sentence does not say it's a note.
3) Hysterical frenzy has multiple effects like the other two in question and therefore unless stated otherwise would be treated the same way as them.

You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.

As far as i know, there is nothing you can do in 40k without explicit permission.

There is also the entire thing that I stated before, about "the unit has +1 strength", If you apply that statement once or 100 times, it does the same thing.

 jegsar wrote:
Indirectly yes and if i knew i would be an accessory to murder...
The same logic you are using that makes you assume you can stack is the same logic that allows me to do there. There is nothing preventing it.

Still pointless word games. Not everything suffers this level of inheritance, so why apply it without anything telling you to?

1) So does the Designer "NOTE" that defines a rule about the definition of same marines in the CSM dex.
2) The second sentence does not say it's a note.

Not sure what you're saying here, can you be clearer please?

3) Hysterical frenzy has multiple effects like the other two in question and therefore unless stated otherwise would be treated the same way as them.

Sorry I wasn't clear. It only applies a single benefit per casting (eg +1 Str on the roll of a 2), as opposed to the others (-1 A and Shrouded on the roll of a 1).

You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.

You assume there isn't permission, but nothing backs this.

As far as i know, there is nothing you can do in 40k without explicit permission.

This has been gone through so many times. Permission is granted, yet you want a second permission, for the same thing.
Also if permission (not just permission, but explicit permission apparently) is needed for everything, where is the explicit permission to apply your inheritance theory?

There is also the entire thing that I stated before, about "the unit has +1 strength", If you apply that statement once or 100 times, it does the same thing.

This is false. Very much so.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jegsar wrote:
Indirectly yes and if i knew i would be an accessory to murder...
The same logic you are using that makes you assume you can stack is the same logic that allows me to do there. There is nothing preventing it.

Still pointless word games. Not everything suffers this level of inheritance, so why apply it without anything telling you to?

Why would you assume it stacks without anything telling you to? Same logic, at least mine is correct regardless of how much you call it a game.

1) So does the Designer "NOTE" that defines a rule about the definition of same marines in the CSM dex.
2) The second sentence does not say it's a note.

Not sure what you're saying here, can you be clearer please?

Sure, Note, can mean notice. Number 1 is refering to where it says "Designers Note" in regards to a rule, and the only place that rule is stated. A note came still be a rule.
As far as number 2, One power does say "note" the other doesn't, so how do you explain that one.

3) Hysterical frenzy has multiple effects like the other two in question and therefore unless stated otherwise would be treated the same way as them.

Sorry I wasn't clear. It only applies a single benefit per casting (eg +1 Str on the roll of a 2), as opposed to the others (-1 A and Shrouded on the roll of a 1).

That doesn't make sense to me, it's talking about multiple castings, not multiple effects of the same casting

You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.

You assume there isn't permission, but nothing backs this.

this argument is just he said he said, there isn't permission either way and this is a permissive rule set.

As far as i know, there is nothing you can do in 40k without explicit permission.

This has been gone through so many times. Permission is granted, yet you want a second permission, for the same thing.

I've shown it as a benefit from a special rule,therefore at least one way it is not allowed. There is also things to indicate this though they are more RAI then RAW.

There is also the entire thing that I stated before, about "the unit has +1 strength", If you apply that statement once or 100 times, it does the same thing.

This is false. Very much so.

Show me where this is false. You have a gun. You have a gun. You still only have 1 gun. Now if you say the follow statements are cumulative, "You have a gun", "You have a gun" then you would have 2 guns however it only states that about different powers, Not the same power.

 jegsar wrote:

You assume you have permission but it doesn't state that you do.

You assume there isn't permission, but nothing backs this.

this argument is just he said he said, there isn't permission either way and this is a permissive rule set.

That's a lie and you know it. It's been proven that there is permission to cast and resolve the power. You haven't yet shown anything that denies that permission.

You can cast a resolve the power, no argument. You do not have permission for the effects of that power to stack. The resolution of the power just states "All the models in the unit have +1 strength". Well when you cast that again, and make that statement again, they do have +1 strength.

As I said the part is going around in circles. Please look at another part of the discussion,

 jegsar wrote:
You can cast a resolve the power, no argument. You do not have permission for the effects of that power to stack. The resolution of the power just states "All the models in the unit have +1 strength". Well when you cast that again, and make that statement again, they do have +1 strength.

They have one strength higher than they did before? Or one higher than base?
If the latter, why are you only considering the base strength?

As I said the part is going around in circles. Please look at another part of the discussion,

... Why? You have no defense and nothing that denies permission, so just look at a different thing you can pretend matters?

And you have no permission that states it does. Neither have permission directly states and the other parts of my argument is what shows you don't have permission. So scrutinize them instead of something you don't have anything written for to back up either.

As far as +1 strength. Where does it say, "when this resolves add 1 strength to the unit."? It says "all the models in the unit have +1 strength".

I am not saying what that +1 is being added to just that once you have "+1 strength" having that statement again doesn't do anything. It's not a verb telling you do something you can do again it's a statement that they have something that they already have (once you go to cast it again).

 jegsar wrote:
And you have no permission that states it does.

So what gives permission to resolve the first power cast?

Neither have permission directly states and the other parts of my argument is what shows you don't have permission. So scrutinize them instead of something you don't have anything written for to back up either.

I'd rather point out your failure at the base and watch the whole house of cards come tumbling down.

I am not saying what that +1 is being added to just that once you have "+1 strength" having that statement again doesn't do anything. It's not a verb telling you do something you can do again it's a statement that they have something that they already have (once you go to cast it again).

The power is cast. The unit has +1 STR. This means the unit has a 5 STR.
The power is cast again. The unit has +1 STR. According to you the unit still has a 5 STR. How does 5 + 1 = 5?

umm the rules state the power resolves. even the second power resolves, if you disagree that any powers can resolve i will find something to show you that they do.

Did you find a quote giving permission? if not then you can't say anything about your second point.

The power is cast, the models in the unit have an effect on them that states "have +1 strength". That is not the same as adding one to their strength.

 jegsar wrote:
The power is cast, the models in the unit have an effect on them that states "have +1 strength". That is not the same as adding one to their strength.

The actually have 2 effects that each say "have +1 strength". You're just refusing to consider the second one and I have no idea why.

Follow this.

You are strength 4.
You have +1 strength.
You have +1 strength.

What strength are you?

5, why?

When you have +1 strength and you state you have +1 strength again, you already have +1 strength.

You have a apple. To make that statement true you must have a apple so now you do.
You have a apple. You already have a apple, why do you need a second 1?

Now if you prefix those statements with "the following statements are cumulative, then you would have 2 apples. That statement is made about different psychic powers but not the same.

 jegsar wrote:
Follow this.

You are strength 4.
You have +1 strength.
You have +1 strength.

What strength are you?

5, why?

When you have +1 strength and you state you have +1 strength again, you already have +1 strength.

You are Strength 6. Unless it is
You are Strength 4
You have +1 unmodified Strength.
You have +1 unmodified Strength.

and the other half? You have a apple, therefore you get an apple, you have an apple, cool you have an apple.

If it said unmodified strength then it could not be combined with anything else that stated unmodified strength. That would change it's interactions with different psychic powers.

You have an apple.
Here, have an apple. You have 2 apples.
Here, have an apple. You have 3 apples.

You are refusing to apply the second power and you haven't cited a rule saying why yet. Are you ever going to?

it doesn't say here, have an apple. it says "You have an apple" or rather "All models in the unit have..." I know English is confusing with each word having multiple meanings, and commas changing those meanings.

 jegsar wrote:
it doesn't say here, have an apple. it says "You have an apple" or rather "All models in the unit have..." I know English is confusing with each word meaning multiple things.

You start with an apple.
Someone comes by and gives you an apple.
Someone comes by and gives you an apple.

How many apples do you have?

That is not what the quotes states though. if it said upon resolution of the power add one to the strength i would agree but that isn't what it states. It states that the models have something and the actual resolution of the power is at the end of the assault phase when the bonus goes away as a side note.

 jegsar wrote:
That is not what the quotes states though. if it said upon resolution of the power add one to the strength i would agree but that isn't what it states. It states that the models have something

The unit has one more apple.
The unit has one more apple.

If they start with 4 apples, how many apples do they have after the previous 2 sentences?

and the actual resolution of the power is at the end of the assault phase when the bonus goes away as a side note.

That is absolutely false.

When does the power resolve? At the end of the casting or at the end of it's effects? If it's the end of casting the effect doesn't need to do anything like one of your previous statements said.

The unit has "+1 strength"
what does +1 strength mean to me it means +1 of it's previous strength. it if already has +1 strength then you make the statement the unit has +1 strength, that statement is true and nothing in the game needs to change to keep it true.

 jegsar wrote:
When does the power resolve? At the end of the casting or at the end of it's effects? If it's the end of casting the effect doesn't need to do anything like one of your previous statements said.

The power resolves after its cast. The resolution if Hammerhand is that the unit has +1 STR.

The unit has "+1 strength"
what does +1 strength mean to me it means +1 of it's previous strength. it if already has +1 strength then you make the statement the unit has +1 strength, that statement is true and nothing in the game needs to change to keep it true.

I have 4 STR.
I have +1 STR.
I have +1 STR.

What is my STR?