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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

its a permissive rulest, not a restrictive one, asking someone to find a restriction is incorrect in a permissive ruleset.

you need to find permissions to do things,

you do not need to find restrictions to NOT do things, in a permissive ruleset, they give you permission to do things, not restrictions to not do things.

you need to find the PERMISSION for the desired activity, otherwise its not allowed.

the book is not a restrictive ruleset, hence why your question isnt appropriate, not to mention you are asking for a negative to be proven, which is not a solid argument to be making.

a restriction need not be found at all for a desired action, when the permission to perform that action has not been found first of all.

 DeathReaper wrote:
I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Correct, just like there are no rules stating same powers do stack. Lack of permission in a permissive rule set.

SJ

 easysauce wrote:

its a permissive rulest, not a restrictive one, asking someone to find a restriction is incorrect in a permissive ruleset.

you need to find permissions to do things,

you do not need to find restrictions to NOT do things, in a permissive ruleset, they give you permission to do things, not restrictions to not do things.

you need to find the PERMISSION for the desired activity, otherwise its not allowed.

the book is not a restrictive ruleset, hence why your question isnt appropriate, not to mention you are asking for a negative to be proven, which is not a solid argument to be making.

a restriction need not be found at all for a desired action, when the permission to perform that action has not been found first of all.

I am so glad you mentioned that:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

Can anyone cite a quote/restriction that says the same powers do not stack? Page and Graph will suffice.

Permission has been shown.
Denial has not.

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

Page 2, Multiple modifiers.

I have a +1 from one casting, and a +1 from the IC's casting.

4+1+1=6 as per the multiple modifiers section on Page 2.

Unless you have a quote that denies page 2 multiple modifiers section being used in the case of Psychic Powers.

Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

OK, for some reason the "doesn't stack" side keeps bringing up page 32. The only restriction I see on page 32 is the same special rule. Where are they getting that psychic powers == special rules?

The point the reverse argument is making is that we do not indeed have multiple modifiers but the same modifier from multiple castings that are therefore all satisfied by a single +1. It is up to you to prove that we have multiple modifiers by proving that the same psychic power is resolved cumulatively with itself.

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, for some reason the "doesn't stack" side keeps bringing up page 32. The only restriction I see on page 32 is the same special rule. Where are they getting that psychic powers == special rules?

It's been invented and has no bearing on the discussion - but they like to keep bringing it up as if it was relevant.

The majority of powers dont give USR's and those that do would not stack. Is malediction or hammerhand a special Rule? If it isn't then page 32 has no bearing on this kind of argument.

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

exactly, you have permission to cast a power, not to stack the same power.

we have permission to stack different powers,

do we have permission to stack the same one? line and pg pls, permission to CAST is not permission to stack

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

easysauce wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

exactly, you have permission to cast a power, not to stack the same power.

we have permission to stack different powers,

do we have permission to stack the same one? line and pg pls, permission to CAST is not permission to stack

I have permission (and am required) to resolve the power (not just cast - that's two steps).
Part of resolving the power is to add -1T to the unit.
Please cite the denial.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

There a pg and citation for that ?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

There a pg and citation for that ?

Is there a page and citation saying they are the same source?

nosferatu1001 wrote:And permission to resolve the power by accumulating has been given - it is a modifier, and page 2 tells you that youu follow the normal rules of maths when applying modifiers.

It is a bizarre idea of "RAW" to deny that the permission is there, and point to reminders elsewhere to create a non-existent additional requirement.

If you are told to add 1 twice, please explain why page 2 does not result in +2. With actual rules, for once.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

An overly general question for a very specific situation so I can only sum it up in a similar nature in one sentence.
>>>It applies what effects it is allowed to.<<<
What was the point of asking that question? I've already covered this. In the case of a second use of the same power, nothing is permitted to happen because they are not cumulative.

And where is there a restriction on what effects it is allowed to apply if it's the second casting?
Enfeeble attempts to add -1T. Is there any rule covering what happens when adding more than one modifier?

Psychic powers are not modifiers so page 2 is irrelevant to the discussion. Enfeebles is a malediction and permission for modifiers to accumulate has nothing to do with it. You need to prove a psychic power is cumulative with other uses of itself. Until then the particulars of its effects are meaningless to discuss as there will be no additional effects from the second use. Right in the resolve power section it tells you what powers are cumulative. In a permissive rule set, that means the others are not cumulative. With a decent grasp on the concept of non-cumulative you'd realize that adding more achieves no additional result. One and one does not equal two if they are not cumulative. Enfeeble plus Enfeeble only results in Enfeeble. If you are increasing the amount of Enfeeble effects on the unit by additional uses of the power you are already treating it cumulatively. That is an assumption of accumulation not stated in the BRB.

You are basically asking me to quote rules that say you cannot do something you are already not permitted to do. The rules for modifiers do not govern psychic powers. Again i ask you to come up with a logical reason that 'same' powers should accumulate.

DeathReaper wrote:I have not been able to find the quote that says the same powers do not stack.

Anyone have a Page and Graph for me that says this?

So your argument is, 'Same' psychic powers are cumulative because modifiers are cumulative and it doesn't say they're not.

Please try again.

rigeld2 wrote:Permission has been shown.
Denial has not.

Saying it again and again does not make it true, no permission has been shown.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

I have permission (and am required) to resolve the power (not just cast - that's two steps).
Part of resolving the power is to add -1T to the unit.
Please cite the denial.

Did you read the part where it tells you what powers are cumulative? Did you know that in a permissive rule set that means that the others are non-cumulative? No denial is needed where no permission is given.

Permission to resolve the power is not permission to treat it cumulatively though the rules does tell you when to do so.

Your assumption is: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = (2)Enfeeble

That is an assumption that they are cumulative because you are adding them together for a combined effect greater than either individually.

They do not have that permission which makes them non-cumulative: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble

 Happyjew wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

There a pg and citation for that ?

Is there a page and citation saying they are the same source?

since the above quotes contain sources twice can you be specific in the question ?
are you asking for the source of where the enfeeble came from or are you asking for where the source of the modifiers are coming from ?

rigeld2 wrote:

easysauce wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from a Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission, in the Psychic power rules, to cast Hammerhand from an IC joined to that same Paladin unit granting that unit a +1 Str.

That's all cool and everyone agrees with that. Now where is your permission to resolve those powers cumulatively so that they become 2 distinct +1 modifiers opposed to both giving the same +1 modifier resulting in an end result of a +1 modifier.

exactly, you have permission to cast a power, not to stack the same power.

we have permission to stack different powers,

do we have permission to stack the same one? line and pg pls, permission to CAST is not permission to stack

I have permission (and am required) to resolve the power (not just cast - that's two steps).
Part of resolving the power is to add -1T to the unit.
Please cite the denial.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 only applies if we have multiple modifiers, you can't use that. You have just used the logical fallacy of A is true because A is true. You have to prove that we have multiple modifiers rather than the same modifier from multiple sources.

Two things (AKA a +1 from one source, and a +1 from a different source ) is the very definition of multiple...

It seems that you do not understand this point.

isn't the source of the modifiers the same power though ?

Same names power, different castings - therefore different sources.

Different caster, but same power. I'm glad you can see it's not a different power even though it has a different source. it's based on the named power, not sources.

pg 142 LRB I think Pg 418 BRB different psychers can have the same powers. They have the same power, they cast the same power.

different powers are cumulative, different sources have no relevancy what so ever.

 Abandon wrote:

Your assumption is: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = (2)Enfeeble

That is an assumption that they are cumulative because you are adding them together for a combined effect greater than either individually.

They do not have that permission which makes them non-cumulative: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble

Please cite the rule that denys Enfeeble the permission to resolve.
Because that's what you're asserting. The resolution requires that it apply the -1T and you're ignoring that.
Bringing up the vehicle red herring would be rude considering I've pointed out why its irrelevant btw.

rigeld2 wrote:

Because that's what you're asserting. The resolution requires that it apply the -1T and you're ignoring that.

Right there , that is completely wrong , resolution has no bearing on the effect. This is why the vehicle example is important

This page is still going on? No one is going to convince others who feel a certain way on this topic... RAW: inconclusive, RAI: 50/50 on what "different" means. When you play with someone just agree on the terms, if playing a tourney find out the ruling. This is the enfeeble thread all over again.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Your assumption is: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = (2)Enfeeble

That is an assumption that they are cumulative because you are adding them together for a combined effect greater than either individually.

They do not have that permission which makes them non-cumulative: Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble

Please cite the rule that denys Enfeeble the permission to resolve.
Because that's what you're asserting. The resolution requires that it apply the -1T and you're ignoring that.
Bringing up the vehicle red herring would be rude considering I've pointed out why its irrelevant btw.

"Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the \Witch roll, you can now resolve the psychic power according to instructions in its entry. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

 Abandon wrote:
So your argument is, 'Same' psychic powers are cumulative because modifiers are cumulative and it doesn't say they're not.

Please try again.

I do not need to try again until you disprove, in a permissive ruleset, my point.

I have permission to cast hammerhand from a paladin squad granting the unit a +1 Str.

I also have permission to cast hammerhand from an IC attached to a paladin squad granting the unit a +1 Str.

Cite a restriction where the Multiple +1 strength modifiers can not apply, because Page 2 says they both apply.

Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not modifiers so page 2 is irrelevant to the discussion.

+1S is, however, a modifier, so multiple castings of hammerhand fall under the multiple modifier rule when you are told to determine the effects

Jeffersonian -so no rules showing restrictions placed on page 2? Your concession is accepted.

 Abandon wrote:

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

Using rules, why are you defining "the power" as any instance of Enfeeble instead of the currently resolving power?

And please stop implying that this is beyond my understanding or skill level somehow - it's not only incorrect, it's rude.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

"Enfeeble is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, the target unit suffers a -l penalty to both Strength and Toughness, and treats all terrain (even open ground) as difficult terrain."

Oh boy this is tough.... I'd say by resolving the second Enfeeble you cause Enfeeble to be in effect on the unit. But since the unit already had Enfeeble in effect on it and they don't stack you really do nothing.

Edit: Added note: Putting things together non-cumulatively is a little counter-intuitive but far from difficult.

Using rules, why are you defining "the power" as any instance of Enfeeble instead of the currently resolving power?

And please stop implying that this is beyond my understanding or skill level somehow - it's not only incorrect, it's rude.

Im going with Rigeld2 on this. Saying the powers don't stack is like saying bolters don't cause more wounds because they have the same name "bolter"

This thread is reminding me of haruspicy more and more.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not modifiers so page 2 is irrelevant to the discussion.

+1S is, however, a modifier, so multiple castings of hammerhand fall under the multiple modifier rule when you are told to determine the effects

Jeffersonian -so no rules showing restrictions placed on page 2? Your concession is accepted.

Just because you have nothing better to do than post multiple times while others do things like work and sleep, don't assume you've won an internet argument. That kind of assumption, much like your position on this subject, is more baseless than conclusive.

We are told on pg. 68 of the BRB that undefined powers which grant modifiers to friendly models are considered Blessings. On the same page, we are informed the different blessings are cumulative, unless otherwise noted. Hammerhand grants a modifier to friendly models, which per the BRB means that Hammerhand is a Blessing. Since Hammerhand lack verbiage stating it can accumulate via multiple castings, the benefit from Hammerhand does not stack with other uses of Hammerhand on the same model. Might of Titan, however, does contain verbiage informing us that its modifier is cumulative with Hammerhand. The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not trumps pg. 2 (specific > general).

In your example, the Paladins wasted their warp charge, because the IC had Hammerhand covered for the unit the whole time. (Note: I'm a Grey Knight player, the advantage would be mine if Hammerhand did stack.)

I'm still waiting for your proof.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The fact that psychic powers have rules for which modifiers are cumulative and which are not

Just like to point out that there aren't any rules in the psychic powers part of the rulebook that tells us what isn't cumulative, which I believe is a major contributing factor to the popularity of these threads.