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.

Again: you are inserting new wording not present.

You are comparing the +1S to the unmodified Strength. Why? NOthing in the rule for HH requires this.

I am S4. I add 1 to my strength. What Strength am I now?

Answer JUST that question.

5, no argument there.

I am however not saying unmodified strength. I am saying that it already has a rule that states it has +1 strength. You have +1 strength. Your now strength 5. You have +1 strength. Yes you do, you don't need another +1 strength to have +1 strength.

Now answer me any of the following 3 questions.

you have a bank account starting with $500 in it. Assuming whatever man A or man B say to be true and if not true it is made true. Man A, "You have Plus $50 in your bank account this month". 1 minute passes. Man B, you have plus $50 in your bank account this month". How much money is now in your bank account?

or

Can you find a rule in any 6th edition rulebook that stacks with itself where there isn't explicit permission for it to stack with itself? (this will satisfy me even though it doesn't prove anything)

or

Prove that HH and HH are two rules and not just 1 rule being applied twice. (this breaks P2)

And if you weren't explicitly forbidden, saves WOULD stack, because you'd have permission to use more than one save and nothing preventing you from doing so.

Look at it this way: "The unit has +1 Strength" is synonymous with "the unit has an additional 1 Strength". If you were told to add 1 Strength to something, what would you do?

To continue your money example: Let's say you sell apples. You get +$50 every time you sell an apple. If you sell two apples, would you then interpret that as meaning that you only get $50, despite being told that if you sell an apple you get $50?

You are changing the wording. HH makes a statement, not performing an action.

As far as saves, that is not stacking as in cumulative first off and second, what single rule can you apply multiple times to get multiple saves? (psychic powers are under argument so don't say a psychic power) and it says it doesn't allow it so you can't do it, i asked for you to find a single rule that you CAN stack and this is cumulative, that doesn't state it can be done directly.

I made the same statement about the bank that HH makes about strength. How much money is in the bank after those two statements are made?

OK, so I now cast HH again. What Strength am I now?

I WAS Strength 5, am I now S5, breaking the second casting, or S6, following the rules exactly for the second ccasting?

You are, in error, comparing to unmodified strength. You have no allowance to do so.

Your example is incomplete. "You have an extra $50" would mean you have X+$50. If someone else comes up and gives you an extra $50, you have X+100 - otherwise you have not fulfilled the second requirement.

The second casting doesnt check to see if you already have +1S, it means you have 1 more strength than you already had. You have ALREADY SAID that you "have" Strength 5, so you must then have S6

2 castings of hammerhand means you have 2 rules in operation. The fact the rules are the same does not break the fact tha t the unit has 2 rules in operation.

HH doesn't say, "Here, have +1 strength" it says "you have +1 strength" stop changing the words.

It is the same rule, not multiple rules... it's applied multiple times.

I have been answering your questions now actually answer one of mine without rewording.
Note i didn't say someone walks up to you and hands you $50 just stated that you have "plus $50 in your bank account this month", if you want you can change it to, "until the end of this month". Problem is you don't know if it is referring to the same $50s or not. Both are vaguely worded, but since it is already true, then you don't need to do anything with that statement to make it true.

If I'm told that twice, I expect $600 in my bank account.

Well I am sorry to disappoint, both men were talking about the same $50s since that is all that is needed for their statements to be true. Both are true at $550.

 jegsar wrote:
Well I am sorry to disappoint, both men were talking about the same $50s since that is all that is needed for their statements to be true. Both are true at $550.

Cite something - anything - saying that the +1 is the same.

The same rule twice is still 2 rules. Maths tells you this.

An apple is a fruit. So is an orange. If I have 2 apples, I still have 2 fruit, even though they are the same fruit.

Yes, so at that moment in time I have X+50. The result (resolution) of that is now fixed and is my new balance

The next person walks up and says I have +50. I look at my current balance and then add 50 to it.

If you are stating I in total only have 50 more, then you have inserted an extra condition - that I have +50 compared to my original balance that morning and not my continually updated balance.

I have $100. I have an additional $50. I look up my balance, I now have $150. I do not have %100+50, I have $150

Someone walks up and says I have an additional $50. IF I look at my account and see I still have $150, then that statement is a lie - I do not have an additional $50, I have the same amount as I did before they walked up to me

That is about the simplest way to explain that you are creating an additional condition.

Cite anything that doesn't. It's coming from the same rule, and P2 states a combination of rules.

How is +1, the same as plus $50?

Well i think we can agree that the word "plus" is interchangeable with the symbol "+". and dollars... well that is the same as $.
So we are rewrite both:
plus 1 strength...
+50 dollars...
We can even do
+1 dollar
and it still works the same way.
How is it not the same?

All I said is that the statements made must be true, if it isn't true then it becomes true. After the first time, once you make that statement again nothing needs to change for it to be true.

Yes, and we have shown that 2 of the same thing is "something" pluralised. Whetehr objects or rules.

You are making ever more rediculous arguments, as you are now claiming that 2 of something isnt in fact 2 things, but one thing. Crazy.

The reason you are struggling is you are continually comparing to the base value. You have NO RULE allowing you to do so, and despite being shown that this is what you are doing you are still denying it.

I think this is definitely past due a thread lock, given we are now essentially trying to show you how you are adding words that dont exist, and you are denying this is the case.

Nos, you have a apple. If you don't you do now.
Nos, you have a apple.
Is the second statement not true after the first statement was made true.

As far as the same rule...
If i give stealth twice to the same unit does it stack? No? why? it's the same rule as stated on page 32. "A model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more then once." "A ... rule" no matter how many times i give it stealth it is the same rule. Same with HH, it is the same rule. (This is just stating that A (singular) rule refers to a rule and not an instance of the rule as you are stating that different instances of HH from different casters are actually different rules. This has nothing do the with the special rules part.)

You ADD an apple. Add != Have

I have 0 apples. You ADD an apple. I have one apple.
I have 1 apple. You ADD an apple. I have 2 apples.

If you say I only have one apple you have not ADDED an apple the second time.

Understand yet how what you are saying is 100% wrong? We're on basic English comprehension here!

If you give the same model Stealth, you only get +1 to cover saves. Why? Because it states that Special Rules do not stack

Hammerhand is NOT A SPECIAL RULE. A RULE about SPECIAL RULES does not apply unless you are talking about SPECIAL RULES

I thought we'd finally proven this to you already? A Psychic power *may* grant a special rule, it does not *have* to grant a special rule. Can you please, for once, focus on one argument until we can show you how thoroughly we have debunked ity? Especially when you refer to an already debunked argument.

Not talking about Psyker...
read slowly...
"A model cannot gain the benefit of A special rule more then once."

If i give a model stealth twice, is that a special rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 special rules?

Read slowly:

Hammerhand is not a special rule.

Does a rule dealing with special rules have any relevance to hammerhand?

Simple yes or no, please. Because again, this is the same debunked argument from 4 pages ago.

I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

 jegsar wrote:
Not talking about Psyker...
read slowly...
"A model cannot gain the benefit of A special rule more then once."

If i give a model stealth twice, is that a special rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 special rules?

+1 Strength is not a special rule. Furthermore, this ridiculous interpretation has already been refuted, as it'd lead to psykers only being allowed to cast one psychic power per game. Otherwise they'd be benefiting from the same special rule more than once...

 jegsar wrote:
I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice. +1 Strength (as in, ADD one Strength, since that's what + means) isn't even a special rule.

Is this thread going anywhere or are we just stuck in an endless loop of "It doesn't stack/ It does stack"?

 jegsar wrote:
I am not claiming HH is a special rule, Just a rule. Now answer my question,
If i give a model stealth twice, is that a rule it benefits from twice or is that 2 rules?

Once we get past this I will get back to HH

No, we wont get past it because it is an irrelevancy. Hammerhand is not a special rule. A rule about special rules has no place in this argument.

Can you please answer the other questions, where we have shown that yet again your bank a/c argument is refuted? Which refutes any argument you have about HAmmerhand?

Please, if you can actually try just one argument, once you see it is refuted we can move on. A simple concession of the point will also help keep things moving

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice.

Alright so we agree if you have a rule twice it is still only 1 rule? good.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

HH is only applied once since it is only 1 rule, not 2 even when it is cast twice.

 jegsar wrote:

Stealth is one Special Rule applied twice.

Alright so we agree if you have a rule twice it is still only 1 rule? good.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." P. 2

HH is only applied once since it is only 1 rule, not 2 even when it is cast twice.

I'm sorry, what page is Hammerhand on? I'm not finding it in the Special rules section of the BRB.

It is a rule... doesn't matter if it is special or not.
However p2. "a combination of rules"
It is a (singular) rule. When given twice is still a single rule.

General rule says benefits from the same special rule do not stack, unless otherwise noted (pg 32, BRB).

Hammerhand (HH) gives a unit the benefit of special rule: S+1.

Unit has S4.
/cast HH = S+1
/cast HH = S+1
/cast HH = S+1
Unit has S4+1 after 3 castings of HH, due to the general rule that benefits from the same special rule do not stack.

Might of Titan (MoT) gives the benefit of special rule: S+1 (stacks with HH).

Unit has S4.
/cast HH = S+1
/cast HH = S+1
/cast MoT = S+1
/cast MoT = S+1
Unit has S4+2 after 2 castings each of HH and MoT, because HH and MoT are different powers with permission to stack per both pg 32 and pg 68 of the BRB. Also of note is that MoT has a special rule that specifically states that it stacks with HH (pg. 25, GK codex)..

The only time HH stacked with itself was after the 5th edition FAQ that specifically stated multiple castings of the same power were cumulative. Before that FAQ, multiple castings of HH were not cumulative. 6th edition specifically states that multiple castings of the same power are not cumulative unless otherwise noted. HH does not note that it stacks with itself, as can be seen clearly on pg. 25 of the GK codex. In addition, neither of the 2 released 6th Edition FAQ for GK have mentioned multiple castings of HH stack.

Based on the fact that the BRB tells us that benefits from the same special rule do not stack in general, and that only benefits from different special rules may stack specifically, we can see that multiple castings of Hammerhand will never produce more than a single +1 bonus to a unit's strength unless noted otherwise by GW. At the current time, GW has not otherwise noted.

SJ

I still stand by what i said about it not working regardless of it's specialty however if you want to see that HH must be special...

page 2, what we have been missing this entire time

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics....

meaning it must be wargear (i don't think so) or a special rule in order to modify a characteristic... I can't find anything else that allows me to modify the characteristics and since HH is not wargear... HH is a special rule.

No Hammerhand is a psychic power. Special rules are things like Stealth, Unwieldy, Armourbane, etc.

As I stated regardless...
It is a rule... doesn't matter if it is special or not.
p2. "a combination of rules..."
It is a (singular) rule. When given twice is still a single rule.

 jegsar wrote:
As I stated regardless...
It is a rule... doesn't matter if it is special or not.
p2. "a combination of rules..."
It is a (singular) rule. When given twice is still a single rule.

And, again, you finish applying the first Hammerhand before moving on to the next, which means you have S5. Then you add the next HH and get S6, because 5+1=6.

No i am implying that HH is a single rule, it states a combination of rules on page 2. multiple modifiers

If a model has a combinations of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any... then apply any additions...

Does it have a combination of rules applying or 1 rule that is trying to be applied twice? (You answered this above, it's 1 rule)
And yes i am implying that a rule is an entire rule and not just +1 strength. Further I will imply that you need to look at what is affecting a characteristic again when you go to modify it again. Point being when you go to modify a model with a power first and the strength bonus to striking, after iron arm has been cast on it. It re does the calculation completely, putting in the power fist first then the iron arm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So it is not set and forget, we have to keep in mind what rules are affecting the model and how they interact. HH for example would go before the power first but you would still need to check that by reading HH.

 jegsar wrote:
Find any rule that stacks with itself, that doesn't state that is has permission to stack with itself.

First you need to define what the word "rule" means exactly and completely in relation to this question. Your definition must be able to answer at least following things: is effect of a Special Rule (as defined in BRB) a "rule"? Is effect of a psychic power a "rule"?.
This is required because otherwise you'll just reply to all examples found with "That is not a rule" or something like that. So we need to have exact definition of "rule" from you so that you cannot backpedal.