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.

Per the YMDC tenets, if you wish to refute my post, you need to cite rules rather than simply saying "you are wrong".

Please cite the specific rules to refute the rules I cited above.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per the YMDC tenets, if you wish to refute my post, you need to cite rules rather than simply saying "you are wrong".

Please cite the specific rules to refute the rules I cited above.

SJ

Refuting a flawed reading of the rules doesn't require a counter-rule, because if that were the case my Terminators are S10 I10 T10, show me where it says they aren't.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per the YMDC tenets, if you wish to refute my post, you need to cite rules rather than simply saying "you are wrong".

Please cite the specific rules to refute the rules I cited above.

SJ

I already did. The word "MIGHT". The one you are ignoring.

I presume you understand the difference, in English, between what yo are claiming "MIGHT" means, and what it actually does mean?

Essentially you changed the meaning of the word "might" to mean something other than what it actually means, and then ask me to show a rule saying that? Amusing.

so might, doesnt mena might either?

four things might cause special rules in that section of BRB,

you now argue what that might means "doesnt"

as well as cast means stack?

your arguement for stacking has moved all over the place,

first it was "codex GK specifically says in HH special rule it stacks with itself" when it doesnt,

then its "permission to cast = permission to be cumulative" also not true

now despite haveing the rules in the BRB spelled out for you where it talks about special rules and psychic powers, you again, simply say "you're wrong" and quote no rules to back your theory up.

we have quoted pages of pertinent rules, none of which are disputed by the special rulespg66-69 allowing powers to be cast

in fact because psykers is a special rule, and powers only used via this special rule,

that is why GW has to give you permission to stack different powers, used via this special rule(regardless of if the powers are special rules or not, even though they are apecial rules) you are using multiples of the special rule "psyker" to cast powers, so they had to give permission to stack multiple different powers

again, 0 rules quoted from the stack side,

because there is no rule allowing cumulative identical powers

claiming that the codex GK has core game rules in it, is just silly, the BRB has a section on rules, the codex does not, you cannot play a game of 40k with codexes, you need the BRB

He isn't arguing that "might" means "doesn't", he's telling you to stop treating "might" as though it's definitive. It isn't. Stop pretending it is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
He isn't arguing that "might" means "doesn't", he's telling you to stop treating "might" as though it's definitive. It isn't. Stop pretending it is.

Im assuming Easysauce, who is on ignore, posted something that managed to yet again miss the rules?

Might != always does. Therefore the correct way to read the sentence is that a psychic power CAN bestow special rules, but it is not certain that it will do so.

There is no definitive requirement in the sentence. Which the "no stack" side seem absolutely incapable of understanding. Basic English.

might means something might do something, your character might hit something when it shoots, does that mean its not rolling to hit just because it might miss?



stop pretending like USR section does not contain the special rules for resolving psychic powers, or talk about psychic powers resulting in special rules at all.

stop pretending that the codex GK has core 40k rules in it,

stop pretending that the brb says "identical powers stack"


again, you have 0 quotes showing permission to make identical powers cumulative.

easysauce wrote:
might means something might do something, your character might hit something when it shoots, does that mean its not rolling to hit just because it might miss?

That's a completely nonsensical comparison; the sentence "A psychic power might bestow a Special Rule upon its target" means that it is possible, but not certain, that the psychic power will bestow a Special Rule upon its target. In your example the state of being a Special Rule would be getting a hit, not rolling to hit.

easysauce wrote:

stop pretending like USR section does not contain the special rules for resolving psychic powers, or talk about psychic powers resulting in special rules at all.

Oh, that's too bad, because that's not true. That's under the chapter "psykers" starting on page 66, not the chapter "special rules" starting on page 32.

easysauce wrote:

stop pretending that the brb says "identical powers stack"

We've never said that it does, and have explained an umptillion times why that's not needed.

easysauce wrote:

stop pretending that the codex GK has core 40k rules in it,

"Eacn Psyker knows one or more psychic powers, as detailed in their codex". I.e. "instead of uswriting down everything here, check the Codices". Still being referenced as part of the core rules.

easysauce wrote:
so might, doesnt mena might either?


four things might cause special rules in that section of BRB,

you now argue what that might means "doesnt"

Cite one time someone has claimed that or admit you are trolling with this comment.

first it was "codex GK specifically says in HH special rule it stacks with itself" when it doesnt,

I believe I was the first to claim that and no one else did after I was corrected.

then its "permission to cast = permission to be cumulative" also not true

An incorrect simplification of the argument - so no, that was never the stance.

now despite haveing the rules in the BRB spelled out for you where it talks about special rules and psychic powers, you again, simply say "you're wrong" and quote no rules to back your theory up.

That's a lie, quotes have been posted.

we have quoted pages of pertinent rules, none of which are disputed by the special rulespg66-69 allowing powers to be cast

in fact because psykers is a special rule, and powers only used via this special rule,

And you've shown absolutely zero support for inheritance, even though it doesn't matter.

again, 0 rules quoted from the stack side,

This is a lie.

because there is no rule allowing cumulative identical powers

This displays a misunderstanding of how rules work.

claiming that the codex GK has core game rules in it, is just silly, the BRB has a section on rules, the codex does not, you cannot play a game of 40k with codexes, you need the BRB

What? What is this referring to? You can't play a game of 40k without codexes so...

Hammerhand is a psychic power, not a special rule. We know this because "might" does not mean "this is an exhaustive list" and the power is not listed to be a special rule.
The stacking order change of Hammerhand is a special rule and has no exception from the stacking limits. This does not stack (not that it could anyhow).
The modifier fits the page 2 definition of a modifier and does not change rules, therefore it is not a special rule. There is no rule saying it does not stack and since the power is permitted to be cast twice on the same unit, it must stack.

I think, by now, we are so far past repeating ourselves to no avail, despite referencing the precise rules allowing stacking, shooting down every single argument raised against it in multiple ways - a bewildering number of which seek to entirely alter the wording int he rule book such as "might" and pretending it means "always does" , for one stunningly simple example - that continuing is just lending the anti- arguments some credence

Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition. The strongest argument presented so far by the "Stackers" is that the "Non-Stacker" argument is "flawed", yet no actual proof has been presented by the "Stackers" to demonstrate what that "flaw" is. "Stackers" have nit-picked wording, called "Non-Stackers" liars, and presented a weak argument that "permission to cast = permission to stack" which is in no way supported by the current rules as written. In fact, "Stackers" have failed to provide an argument fully backed by the rules as written to support their side over the course of 16 pages of thread.

My recommendation to the "Stackers" is to put the dictionary down and actually read the BRB. Please.

My recommendation to the Forum moderators to lock this thread down, as it contains 14 pages of circular arguing with only one side of the argument following the Forum's tenets. Please.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition.

If you actually read the thread you will know that the information you provided is incorrect.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition. The strongest argument presented so far by the "Stackers" is that the "Non-Stacker" argument is "flawed", yet no actual proof has been presented by the "Stackers" to demonstrate what that "flaw" is. "Stackers" have nit-picked wording, called "Non-Stackers" liars, and presented a weak argument that "permission to cast = permission to stack" which is in no way supported by the current rules as written. In fact, "Stackers" have failed to provide an argument fully backed by the rules as written to support their side over the course of 16 pages of thread.

My recommendation to the "Stackers" is to put the dictionary down and actually read the BRB. Please.

My recommendation to the Forum moderators to lock this thread down, as it contains 14 pages of circular arguing with only one side of the argument following the Forum's tenets. Please.

SJ

Pointing out flaws in an argument is not "nitpicking", it's pointing out an error that makes the whole argument null. And for the record, inventing new, creative interpretations of the word "might" IS lying. I agree about the lock request and only one side following the tenets, but considering your side seemingly hasn't grasped how a permissive rule set works it's not the side you seem to think that's breaking the rules.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I Every single non-stack argument has been repeatedly and comprehensively demolished.

There has not been a single "Stacker" argument made in this thread that has been supported by the actual rules as written. However, the "Non-Stackers" have cited every relevant rule showing why the specific psychic power "Hammerhand" does not stack in 6th Edition. The strongest argument presented so far by the "Stackers" is that the "Non-Stacker" argument is "flawed", yet no actual proof has been presented by the "Stackers" to demonstrate what that "flaw" is. "Stackers" have nit-picked wording, called "Non-Stackers" liars, and presented a weak argument that "permission to cast = permission to stack" which is in no way supported by the current rules as written. In fact, "Stackers" have failed to provide an argument fully backed by the rules as written to support their side over the course of 16 pages of thread.

My recommendation to the "Stackers" is to put the dictionary down and actually read the BRB. Please.

My recommendation to the Forum moderators to lock this thread down, as it contains 14 pages of circular arguing with only one side of the argument following the Forum's tenets. Please.

SJ

Given you have repeatedly lied about hte meaning of the word "might", your stance is as flawed as your argument

You can call me a liar all you want Nos, but until you actually bother to prove that same psychic powers are cumulative, your side has no argument. None.

And as to pointing out errors in an argument nullifies the argument, please review the YMDC Tenets on posting counter arguments. Telling someone "they are wrong" does not equal "you are correct". The Non-Stackers have cited repeatedly the chain of logic supporting their position, while the Stackers have only attacked the Non-Stackers’ posts. If you are unwilling to cite rules to support your chain of logic, then you’re conceding the point to the Non-Stackers.

It does not matter how many times you point out what you think are flaws in the Non-Stacker argument, if you never bother to post your own side of the argument. If you cannot support your side of the argument by citing actual rules as written, then you have no argument.

As I've posted before, I would challenge the Stackers to prove their side if they can; it’s unfortunate that the rules do not support your position, which is why your side has fallen to calling people liars and trying to stall over the common meanings of specific words that in the end you won't except anyway.

We are at the point where the Stackers need to fish or cut bait. I await your rules based chain of logic that supports same psychic powers being cumulative. Or your simply conceding the point as you have no rules based proof of your argument. The gauntlet is has been thrown.

SJ

Incorrect

We demonstrated our support early on. I assume you didnt read those parts of the thread? Perhaps you could do everyoen some courtesy by reviewing it, so you can see the specific points raised? Thanks,

Your argument hangs on the premise that a psychic power always gives a special rule. However, sadly for you, this is only true when you lie and change the meaning of the word "Might" to mean "always does do", or some other more definitive statement. Despite this being poointed out a number of times, you are still clinging to this as your central point.

The chain of logic you present has been fatally undermined pretty much every step along the way, and successfully attacked. You have no counterargument to the facts we presented.

thank you for you concession, again, on this topic. Good day

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you are unwilling to cite rules to support your chain of logic, then you’re conceding the point to the Non-Stackers.

I've cited rules.

If you cannot support your side of the argument by citing actual rules as written, then you have no argument.

I've cited rules.

As I've posted before, I would challenge the Stackers to prove their side if they can; it’s unfortunate that the rules do not support your position, which is why your side has fallen to calling people liars and trying to stall over the common meanings of specific words that in the end you won't except anyway.

I've cited rules. And it's "accept" not "except". And nothing I've cited requires debating the common meaning of a word.

We are at the point where the Stackers need to fish or cut bait. I await your rules based chain of logic that supports same psychic powers being cumulative. Or your simply conceding the point as you have no rules based proof of your argument. The gauntlet is has been thrown.

I've cited rules. The fact that you seem to continuously ignore my posts is not my problem, but please do not lie and say that no one has cited rules.

I'd call it a huge stretch when you say a Psychic power is a SR. So it's a SR of a SR? That breaks the game based on only models and weapons have special rules...When you have to straight up make things up, I'd say you've already lost and your just hoping that if you yell loud enough at the opposition, they'll throw up their hands and leave; leaving you to think you somehow "won".

RAW, modifiers stack, Hammerhand gives a MODIFIER, so it stacks, assuming its from two different sources (psykers).

RAI, I think the sentence on granting different powers the ability to stack unless stated is a good indicator that same powers HH+HH for example, are not meant to stack, but until it's faq'd, its RAW they do. Because hey, S7 I6 tactical marines with S7 AP4 rending guns is Totally balanced amiright!?...and people complain about crons...

overlordweasel wrote:

RAI, I think the sentence on granting different powers the ability to stack unless stated is a good indicator that same powers HH+HH for example, are not meant to stack, but until it's faq'd, its RAW they do. Because hey, S7 I6 tactical marines with S7 AP4 rending guns is Totally balanced amiright!?...and people complain about crons...

You can't carry both a psycannon and a halberd unless you are a termie. You take that gun and you're left with the blunt end of it as a melee weapon.

Not to mention that even if your imaginary unit was possible, it would require both your HQ choices to stand in it. It just sounds silly when you make it sound like this is some kind of standard choice the other army has, when in fact it is first of all not tac marines, and second would require you to build your whole army around that unit.

You can't carry both a psycannon and a halberd unless you are a termie. You take that gun and you're left with the blunt end of it as a melee weapon.

Not to mention that even if your imaginary unit was possible, it would require both your HQ choices to stand in it. It just sounds silly when you make it sound like this is some kind of standard choice the other army has, when in fact it is first of all not tac marines, and second would require you to build your whole army around that unit.

GK Libby with MotT+HH in a unit of tactical Marines with halberds. Last I checked that's +3 Str, I6, so I didn't clarify that the Psycannon hits in CC arent AP3 or I6? so what, their still I4 and S7, which is STILL MC lvl statline right their on a 20 to what 40? point model. Make em Purifiers and you get an extra psycannon per 5, and now you get CF, basically a HoW SR on steroids. My imaginary unit doesnt even require "a entire list built around it" Its 250 points base no upgrades for a GK libby and a 5 man strike squad. add in upgrades of above and you reach roughly 300 or so....thats pretty cheap and take 2 HQs of the same variety and you have 2 of these for roughly 600 points, thats brely a 1/3rd of a 1500 point list. Add in more bodies/ make me Termies instead and you got yourself a pretty good double deathstar.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You can call me a liar all you want Nos, but until you actually bother to prove that same psychic powers are cumulative, your side has no argument. None.

They have. Multiple times. You just don't seem understand how permissive ruleset works. When blanket permission to do something is given, permission to do it is valid until it is specifically revoked.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And as to pointing out errors in an argument nullifies the argument, please review the YMDC Tenets on posting counter arguments. Telling someone "they are wrong" does not equal "you are correct".

Yes, but it does mean that Non-Stackers are wrong.
And considering that Non-Stackers have been unable to refute the main argument of Stackers, this by default means Stackers are right.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The Non-Stackers have cited repeatedly the chain of logic supporting their position, while the Stackers have only attacked the Non-Stackers’ posts.

Non-Stackers posts have been attacked, because their 'chain of logic' is worthless. Every single argument Non-Stackers have used to 'cite' their arguments is either based on having very poor reading comprehension skills, making logical fallacies, using rules interpretations that if used consistently break the game and/or just plain making up rules. And the chain of logic for Stackers have been posted multiple times, so please don't claim it hasn't. Actually very large part of Non-Stackers arguments are attacks against the base of the Stackers so-called 'chain of logic'.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
If you are unwilling to cite rules to support your chain of logic, then you’re conceding the point to the Non-Stackers.

All the relevant rules have been cited, repeatedly. You just keep ignoring them and people have grown tired of repeating themselves time after time, especially as Non-Stackers haven't been able refute any of them.

Example of why Stacking works. This example has probably been posted at least ten of times in this thread already in one form or another (though according to you has never been posted before).
1. Blanket permission has been given to cast and resolve Psychic power on unit/model.
2. This blanket permissions allows to to cast and resolve Psychic power multiple times on same unit/model.
3. As we have permission to resolve multiple instances of same Psychic power on same unit/model and no rule takes this permission away, Psychic Powers stack.Non-Stackers have not quoted single actual rule that denies this blanket permission. All attempts to do so have lead to laughable results when applied consistently.

Obviously Psychic powers that grant Special rules, like Endurance, are still subject to the "no duplicate Special Rules" restriction. Others, like Iron Arm are partially affected. Stat modifiers are not Special Rules, as has been shown (consistent application of reverse leads to silly and unplayable results), but Eternal Warrior obviously is. So while Psychic power might possibly grant a Special Rule, they often don't.

Luide - there you go with that "might" word again...remember, that means "always does" to a "non-stacker"

overlordweasel wrote:

You can't carry both a psycannon and a halberd unless you are a termie. You take that gun and you're left with the blunt end of it as a melee weapon.

Not to mention that even if your imaginary unit was possible, it would require both your HQ choices to stand in it. It just sounds silly when you make it sound like this is some kind of standard choice the other army has, when in fact it is first of all not tac marines, and second would require you to build your whole army around that unit.

GK Libby with MotT+HH in a unit of tactical Marines with halberds. Last I checked that's +3 Str, I6, so I didn't clarify that the Psycannon hits in CC arent AP3 or I6? so what, their still I4 and S7, which is STILL MC lvl statline right their on a 20 to what 40? point model. Make em Purifiers and you get an extra psycannon per 5, and now you get CF, basically a HoW SR on steroids. My imaginary unit doesnt even require "a entire list built around it" Its 250 points base no upgrades for a GK libby and a 5 man strike squad. add in upgrades of above and you reach roughly 300 or so....thats pretty cheap and take 2 HQs of the same variety and you have 2 of these for roughly 600 points, thats brely a 1/3rd of a 1500 point list. Add in more bodies/ make me Termies instead and you got yourself a pretty good double deathstar.

So if you throw a stormshield on one termie in another army you would then say that was "a unit with 3++ save"?
And you don't think that's sort of just an attempt to make it sound better than it is?

Not to mention that you simply assume that all three casts will go through every time and completely disregard the possibility that you will take wounds yourself from attempting to activate this death star. Losing one of 5 guys is pretty hefty, and taking wounds on your warlord to do it is also quite horrid. Not to mention that as you wanted to do this twice you've built your whole army around these stars again.

I'll agree that what you describe is a unit that none the less is devastating in close combat with a decent shot aswell... but it's 5 space marines. It's hardly hard to shoot them out before they get anywhere. Make it Termies and you can call it a deathstar (and double the cost).

On topic, I do wonder why they just removed it from the FAQ...

are mods looking at this thread? It's pretty much a circular debate here and we're coming up on the 17th page. Obviously not going to end anything soon, so can we have this locked before it devolves into a flaming thread, which I see rapidly approaching.

overlordweasel wrote:
are mods looking at this thread? It's pretty much a circular debate here and we're coming up on the 17th page. Obviously not going to end anything soon, so can we have this locked before it devolves into a flaming thread, which I see rapidly approaching.

I think it already has started burning...

overlordweasel wrote:
I'd call it a huge stretch when you say a Psychic power is a SR. So it's a SR of a SR? That breaks the game based on only models and weapons have special rules...When you have to straight up make things up, I'd say you've already lost and your just hoping that if you yell loud enough at the opposition, they'll throw up their hands and leave; leaving you to think you somehow "won".

RAW, modifiers stack, Hammerhand gives a MODIFIER, so it stacks, assuming its from two different sources (psykers).

RAI, I think the sentence on granting different powers the ability to stack unless stated is a good indicator that same powers HH+HH for example, are not meant to stack, but until it's faq'd, its RAW they do. Because hey, S7 I6 tactical marines with S7 AP4 rending guns is Totally balanced amiright!?...and people complain about crons...

My argument isn't lost because I've stated all psychic powers are special rules. My argument is won because the BRB states under Special Rules that psychic powers can grant special rules. There are several psychic powers that do not grant special rules, such as any psychic power that counts as a shooting attack or a close combat attack. However, any psychic power that bends or changes the rules are in fact granting special rules per the BRB. A psychic power that grants a movement ability has granted a special rule to the unit that benefit from that movement ability. A psychic power that grants a modifier to a unit has granted a special rule to that unit allowing them to benefit from that modifier. A psychic power that grants a change in the sequence of steps in a phase has granted a special rule that changes the sequence of steps in that phase. Argue all you want against that, but the BRB supports psychic powers granting special rules. Hammerhand grants a Strength bonus changing a units Characteristic Profile as well as bending the rules regarding when that modifier comes into play. That is a special rule as defined by the BRB on page 32.

Per RAW, only different modifiers stack, not same modifiers unless otherwise noted. Multiple Rad Grenades on the same assault do not stack, multiple Furious Charge on the same assault do not stack. The very few modifiers that do stack have been given specific permission to do so, such as found in the new Chaos Space Marines codex.

As to RAI, how do you know that it was intended for benefits from same powers to be cumulative when the rule as written states only benefits from different powers are cumulative? Same =/= Different.

I understand that the Stackers position is that Hammerhand casted by a GM is different than Hammerhand casted by a Librarian is different from Hammerhand casted by a unit of Strikers. However, where does it state in any of the rules that Hammerhand cast by one unit is different from Hammerhand cast by another? If the Rad Grenades on my GM do not stack with the Rad Grenades on my Inquisitor, then why would the same GM's Hammerhand stack with the same Inquisitor's Hammerhand? Because you think the two are different? Why is it that the Rad Grenades are different when the Hammerhands are not? Please cite a rule to shows this.

Remember, pg. 32 of the BRB treat benefits gained from several different sources to be special rules, because those benefits bend or charge the basic rules of the game. The BRB even points out Wargear, Psychic Powers, Scenarios, and Terrain as sources of special rules. The 6th Edition FAQ support this in their rulings on same wargear that grant benefits to not be cumulative. Intent appears to be that unless otherwise noted, benefits from the same abilities, be they wargear, psychic powers, scenarios, or terrain are not cumulative. In the Psyker section of the BRB (pg. 68) we have specific permission for the same benefits from different powers to stack; i.e., the +1Str from Hammerhand and the +1Str from Might of Titan are cumulative (the Might of Titan entry on pg. 25 of the GK codex and pg. 68 of the BRB tell us so).

What I want from the Stackers is the same break down I just gave that supports their position. Simply stating "you're wrong", "I've cited rules", or "please re-read the thread" will be taken as admission the Stackers do not in fact have an argument and are conceding.

SJ

Its definitely heated up, and should probably be locked. I'll hit the report button on this post.

I'm sure this'll come up again all too soon. ....