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.

 fuusa wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

Yes, but hammerhand is a psychic power, which by definition was used by a psycher.
Pg 41 defines "psycher" as a special rule, as do the codices (so far I have looked at those I have, chaos x2 and eldar, tau notwithstanding).

The rules on p66+, "psychers" are therefore a subset or the explanation of what psycher the special rule means.
= the +1 from hammerhand was sourced from a special rule. Pg 2 is not specific enough here to sway the debate either way.

That plus the same/different debate seems to me the only challenge to pg 2.

Tbh, I am undecided (deny the witch and psychic hood give cause for concern).

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Can we stop saying "psycher", it looks like Cher became a psyker.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Disagree, it may be fundamental.
You didn't answer the question though, how many special rules are being used?

 Xerics wrote:

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Psyker is a special rule, which is explained in the psyker section, p41 is not a rule, its a reference to p66.

The psyker "special rules" are explained there where the powers are grouped into blessings, conjurations etc.
Therefore, psychic powers are governed by special rules.

 fuusa wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Disagree, it may be fundamental.
You didn't answer the question though, how many special rules are being used?

 Xerics wrote:

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Psyker is a special rule, which is explained in the psyker section, p41 is not a rule, its a reference to p66.

The psyker "special rules" are explained there where the powers are grouped into blessings, conjurations etc.
Therefore, psychic powers are governed by special rules.

No the rules for Psykers are on page 66. The Psyker special rule allows a model to use the rules on page 66. And I've yet to see any proof that psychic powers are specialrules with the exception of "Psyker is a special rule therefore any rules dealing with Psykers are special rules."

 fuusa wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Disagree, it may be fundamental.
You didn't answer the question though, how many special rules are being used?

 Xerics wrote:

Psycher itself is a special rule meaning you cant have the psycher special rule in effect more then once. Just because being a psycher is a special rule doesnt automatically make the powers they cast fall under the same catagory. you are assuming too much with your "Psycher is a special rule" line.

Psyker is a special rule, which is explained in the psyker section, p41 is not a rule, its a reference to p66.

The psyker "special rules" are explained there where the powers are grouped into blessings, conjurations etc.
Therefore, psychic powers are governed by special rules.

Again, you are making a logical fallacy that, because "Psyker" is a special rule, that anything the psyker then does / grant / take away etc must be a special rule

+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

"Stealth" is not a special rule, "Stealth" is a Universal Special Rule that grants a modifier to cover saves which changes the basic rules for how cover saves are generated. Its the modifier and other rules found under the name "Stealth" that constitute a special rules. USR's, as noted in the Special Rules section of the BRB, are the most commonly used special rules in the game which are listed in one place, yet are by no means exclusive. Any rules that bends or breaks the basic rules are by definition "special rules" per pg. 32. The majority of psychic powers contain special rules, such as a +1 Strength modifier (per pg. 32), applying a modifier out of sequence (as seen in Hammerhand), or granting a USR (as seen in Shrouded). As such, these rules follow the restrictions found on pg. 32.

Hammerhand grants two things the bend or break the rules: +1S and applying it before multiplication. Per pg. 32, the modifier from Hammerhand is not cumulative because Hammerhand does not contain verbiage telling us its modifier is cumulative with other castings of Hammerhand, a point that is reiterated on pg. 68. The same is true for Enfeeble.

There are several psychic powers that do not contain special rules, such as Witchfire powers that count as wespons, yet do not have additional rules that bend or break the basic rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
"Stealth" is not a special rule, "Stealth" is a Universal Special Rule

What page can Universal Special Rules be found on? I see "Special Rules" starting on page 32, but looking in the index I see no mention of Universal Special Rules.

Furthermore, under Sergeant Telion in C:SM, one of his Special Rules is "Stealth". If Stealth is not a Special Rule, where can I find the rules for it?

So when you are told that USRs are common Special Rules, that makes Stealth NOT a special rule?

Interesting take on the rules. Totally ignores them, but interesting nonetheless.

I give up. No point in trying to explain further. Good luck to the reasonable Dakka folk, you'll need it versus the Dakka Debate Society. I'm out.

SJ

Mind War is a Psychic power that targets an individual model rather then a unit. It bends/breaks the rules yet it isnt a special rule. How do you explain that one?

 Xerics wrote:
Mind War is a Psychic power that targets an individual model rather then a unit. It bends/breaks the rules yet it isnt a special rule. How do you explain that one?

Because the Psychic power specifies what it does, so it is more specific than the general targeting rules (Advanced Vs. Basic).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

+1 cover save is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule.
If I have a model with a piece of war gear that negates special rules, you wont be getting that +1 save as it is sourced from a special rule.
You wouldn't be using psychic powers either, so that +1S from hammerhand is gone.

 Happyjew wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
"Stealth" is not a special rule, "Stealth" is a Universal Special Rule

What page can Universal Special Rules be found on? I see "Special Rules" starting on page 32, but looking in the index I see no mention of Universal Special Rules.

P32, first para. "That's why we have universal special rules."

Negating the special rule Psyker would not negate psychic powers previously cast on or by the psyker.

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

+1 cover save is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule.
If I have a model with a piece of war gear that negates special rules, you wont be getting that +1 save as it is sourced from a special rule.
You wouldn't be using psychic powers either, so that +1S from hammerhand is gone.

Negates ALL special rules? Then you cannot use the psychic power in the first place. If it only negates special rules affecting the bearer, and the opponent is the GK, then +1S would not go.

You still seem to believe that +1S is a special rule. It isnt, despite Jeffersonians made up rules otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 fuusa wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
[+1S is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule. Spotted the difference yet?

+1 cover save is not a special rule. Stealth is a special rule.
If I have a model with a piece of war gear that negates special rules, you wont be getting that +1 save as it is sourced from a special rule.
You wouldn't be using psychic powers either, so that +1S from hammerhand is gone.

Negates ALL special rules? Then you cannot use the psychic power in the first place. If it only negates special rules affecting the bearer, and the opponent is the GK, then +1S would not go.

By negating special rules, I meant nothing works, not nullifying existing effects, that was unclear.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You still seem to believe that +1S is a special rule. It isnt, despite Jeffersonians made up rules otherwise.

No, certainly not.
+1S can however, come from a special rule like furious charge.

So, if we run with that, according to pg2, a model with fc gets his +1 S.
If we then introduce a bubble effect that grants usr furious charge, pg2 is ok with +2S, p32 says no, special rules don't stack in that manner.

If however the bubble effect was called "go loopy" both pg2 and p32 are ok.
They do the same things, but are not the same.

The +1/+2 S is not a special rule, the source of those modifiers are (in this case) certainly special rules, so the nature of special rules has to be taken into account when using modifiers, p2 is not sufficient alone.

So, with my bit of war gear, there are no active psykers around and the +1/+2 S will not occur, because they originate from special rules.
Of course, this bit of war gear could be a right disaster for game purposes and is an invention purely for arguments sake.

Oh it would be a complete disaster, so much wouldnt operate as it is tied to a special rule.

The +1S from hammerhand comes from a special rule, the psyker special rule, so would only be "stopped" by thsi wargear if it stopped the psyker from casting it. If it were a "in base contact" style wargear, then as long as the psyker wasnt in base contact at the time they want to cast the power, your wargear would not remove the +1S even if the psyker later moved into base contact. (e.g. pile in at Init)

As for page 2 not being seen in isolation - I agree. The point is that unless you can show that page 32 applies to Hammerhand / etc, which of course it doesnt, then the allowance on page 2 to do 1+ 1 and equal 2 would still apply, as page 2 at no point mentions source

This is what Jeffersonian has so far failed to prove - first by saying that page 2 doesnt allow X+1+1 to equal X+2 (they stated it only allowed a single addition - which is totally incorrect), then by saying the all psychic powers are special rules as per page 32 (they are not - some may grant special rules, or incorporate special rules, but they are not in and of themselves special rules) , and then by saying that because you are reminded that different psychic powers can combine effects that this somehow means the inverse is true (the missing middle fallacy) - which is also not true.

Every single argument, every time, has been debunked

"Stacking" is simply mathematics. We are given permission to use the normal rules (axioms) of mathematics on page 2, and nothing removes this for the "same" psychic power. *Only* where a psychic power grants the same special rule - for example Stealth - is stacking prevented

This is all very, very clear.

So for example several Nurgle Daemon Psykers roll up Miasma of Pestilence and get into a large melee (assume each is its own unit within the fight). Does that mean the penalties from Miasma of Pestilence would stack with one another (roll a d3 at start of each fight subphase, all enemy units locked in combat with the target or his unit suffers penalties to WS and I equal to the dice roll)?

Yes, as you have permission for each one of them to resolve.

You then have arguments of "this power" - does it mean this instance of casting, or this named power at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as you have permission for each one of them to resolve.

You then have arguments of "this power" - does it mean this instance of casting, or this named power at all.

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

No we can't. Only if GW would have told us which powers stack... Wait! They did!

 Crimson wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

No we can't. Only if GW would have told us which powers stack... Wait! They did!

You have a Citation I assume?

 DeathReaper wrote:

You have a Citation I assume?

Obviously. You know it, it has been posted many times. They say different powers stack. We know what they meant. Saying that "oh, but they didn't say same powers don't" is just exploiting a legal loophole to get around the intent. If you want to play like that, go for it, I personally don't.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

You have a Citation I assume?

Obviously. You know it, it has been posted many times. They say different powers stack. We know what they meant. Saying that "oh, but they didn't say same powers don't" is just exploiting a legal loophole to get around the intent. If you want to play like that, go for it, I personally don't.

I completely, 100% disagree on your "RAI" interpretation there. The "different powers stack" rule could EASILY refer to different castings of a power. Just like how firing two lascannons at a target means they get resolved twice... Even if they're identical lascannons on identical Tac Marines.

And if Maledictions don't stack, does Objuration Mechanicum not inflict two Haywire hits when cast twice, in the mind of the disagreers?

 jifel wrote:

I completely, 100% disagree on your "RAI" interpretation there. The "different powers stack" rule could EASILY refer to different castings of a power. Just like how firing two lascannons at a target means they get resolved twice... Even if they're identical lascannons on identical Tac Marines.

In that same chapter 'same power' is used to mean 'power with the same name', thus it logically follows that 'different power' is 'power with a different name'.

And if Maledictions don't stack, does Objuration Mechanicum not inflict two Haywire hits when cast twice, in the mind of the disagreers?

It probably does, as the haywire hits are an instant rather than ongoing effect, and not part of 'whilst in effect' clause.

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:

I completely, 100% disagree on your "RAI" interpretation there. The "different powers stack" rule could EASILY refer to different castings of a power. Just like how firing two lascannons at a target means they get resolved twice... Even if they're identical lascannons on identical Tac Marines.

In that same chapter 'same power' is used to mean 'power with the same name', thus it logically follows that 'different power' is 'power with a different name'.

And if Maledictions don't stack, does Objuration Mechanicum not inflict two Haywire hits when cast twice, in the mind of the disagreers?

It probably does, as the haywire hits are an instant rather than ongoing effect, and not part of 'whilst in effect' clause.

Hammerhand states: "...If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (Including IC's) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase..." (Page 25 GK Codex, Non essential text removed).

There is no 'whilst in effect' clause in Hammerhand, just a +1 Str. Casting this twice would result in multiple modifiers, and as such page 2 applies.

Same power, different casting.

P.S. "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Hammerhand states: "...If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (Including IC's) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase..." (Page 25 GK Codex, Non essential text removed).

It's an old power and has old wording. Maybe it stacks then. Or then you just chalk it up as 5E codex clitch and play it like 6E power. Both options seem reasonable to me.

P.S. "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (page 68 BRB) does not mean that the effects of the same psychic power are not cumulative.

I have already said what I think about that line of reasoning. But then you can cast those cumulative Enfeebles on those T6 Rawenwing bikers if you want to play like that.

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.

As it is not given the status of 'cumulative' it really doesn't matter if 'the power' means that use or the power in general. Either way Enfeeble will be 'in effect' only once as same psychic powers are not permitted to be cumulative. With that in mind, no matter which way you want to call it, Enfeeble will only ever be in effect once at any given point on the same unit.

I would not imply as much but as much as I explain you either do not seem to understand or intentionally ignore my point.

Lemartes12 wrote:

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"

The shooting rules are much more detailed than psychic powers and tell you exactly how to handle any number of bolters. Wounds are also worded so as to be cumulative when subtracted from a model.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Nem wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 fuusa wrote:
Bit of a rhetorical question for both sides, but should a modifier, that is sourced from a special rule, be cumulative if not specified?

Ask Page 2

Thought special rules say they are only cumulative when mentioned in the entry

That is true, however the +1 Str from Hammerhand is not a special rule (Or the effects of any Psychic power, unless it specifically mentions a USR within the power itself), unless i missed it on pages 33-43 of the BRB.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The same rule, many times. Which under your idea that the "special rule" designation is totally transitive, means that wounds cannot stack.

I'd suggest your reading is a little broad.

Psychic powers are not special rules, modifiers or war gear. That their effects may cause some of those things does not mean that the powers are governed by their rules. That throws out pages 2 and 32, I'm tired of hearing about them, they hold no sway over this issue.

PrinceRaven wrote:Thank you for proving my point that something tangentially related to a special rule is not bound by the same rules that prevent stacking.

Quite correct. This also means the powers that are 'tangentially related' to modifiers are not granted the ability to stack either. That they cause special rules or modifiers does not matter

PrinceRaven wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, as you have permission for each one of them to resolve.

You then have arguments of "this power" - does it mean this instance of casting, or this named power at all.

Which, as I have said previously, is so ambiguous a wording that we really can't say with certainty one way or the other what "this power" refers.

Which does not matter because 'this power' is not permitted to stack. The second instance of the same power therefore does not add to the volume of 'this power' that is in effect. IE You would be, by definition, required to handle them cumulatively to ever count more than one Enfeeble on a unit no matter how many times you add(resolve) another one. This means the number of Enfeebles on a unit will never exceed one unless you find permission for the power to be cumulative with itself.

...and please no more running around in circles, permission to resolve each one is not permission to handle them cumulatively and how you handle modifiers and special rules has no bearing on psychic powers.

 Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not special rules, modifiers or war gear. That their effects may cause some of those things does not mean that the powers are governed by their rules. That throws out pages 2 and 32, I'm tired of hearing about them, they hold no sway over this issue.

(Emphasis mine)
The +1 str from hammerhand in the GK codex, disagrees with the underlined.

Psychic powers can grant modifiers...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Psychic powers are not special rules, modifiers or war gear. That their effects may cause some of those things does not mean that the powers are governed by their rules. That throws out pages 2 and 32, I'm tired of hearing about them, they hold no sway over this issue.

(Emphasis mine)
The +1 str from hammerhand in the GK codex, disagrees with the underlined.

Psychic powers can grant modifiers...

Your statement does not disagree with mine. You say they can grant modifiers but do not claim they are modifiers. I'm glad you can tell the difference. It's cause and effect really. IE, Enfeeble causes a modifier. It would b a logical fallacy to assume that because the effect stacks that the cause does also. All I'm saying is if the cause (Enfeeble) does not stack, there will never be more than one cause(Enfeeble) on a unit to create an effect(modifier). If you tell me there can be two Enfeebles on a unit, please tell me how you managed to count two of them without adding them up, AKA stacking them, AKA treating them as cumulative.

Unless I'm reading to much into your statement in which case, please tell us how a psychic power is a modifier.

Right Psychic powers are not modifiers, but they can grant modifiers. I thought you were talking about the effects of Powers, not the powers themselves.

There can be two of the same psychic power cast on a single unit, and if they grant the unit a modifier, these modifiers will stack as per P.2