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.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
For the most part I agree with Crimson, until we know what "the power" refers to in Enfeeble and similarly worded powers we're basically guessing whether they're supposed to stack or not. But going back to the OP's question, as Hammerhand does not have the ambiguous wording of Enfeeble et al. it definitely stacks according to RAW.

I'd like to point out again that the only time Hammerhand had permission to stack was at the end of 5th edition, due to the last 5th ed BRB FAQ which allowed all powers with modifiers to be cumulative with multiple castings. That permission did not carry over to 6th, as of the very first 6th ed BRB FAQ, which did not include similar verbiage. Nor does the current GK FAQ. However, the Codex: Inquisition version of Hammerhand is listed as a Blessing.

If we follow the rules detailing all abilities that bend or break the basic rules of the game are not cumulative with multiple uses of the same ability (unless otherwise noted), as written in the Special Rules section of the BRB, which does list psychic powers as a source and stat modifiers as an effect that fall under this ruling, then the "reminder" that different powers are cumulative is in fact permission to deviate from the Special Rules restriction, rather than an unneeded reminder that "does not mean same does not stack". Following the logic that GW wrote the BRB to be read by a 7th grader from front to back, top to bottom, left to right, we see that GW lays down a theme of different abilities being cumulative, while multiple uses of the same ability requires specific permission to be cumulative.

6th ed is not a tightly written rule set, with rules that stand alone in a vacuum. It takes a broader, more interactive reading of the rules to achieve a better understanding of what we are given permission to do in the game.

SJ

At no point does the Special Rules section state that the restriction of the same special rule to be cumulative is extended to psychic powers. Hammerhand stacks because it has permission to be cast, resolve and affect a unit and nothing in the rules states that then unit already being under the effects of a previous Hammerhand denies permission in any way.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
At no point does the Special Rules section state that the restriction of the same special rule to be cumulative is extended to psychic powers. Hammerhand stacks because it has permission to be cast, resolve and affect a unit and nothing in the rules states that then unit already being under the effects of a previous Hammerhand denies permission in any way.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make your view on it true.

SJ

That's not much of a counter-argument.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make your view on it true.

Can you quote where Enfeeble or Hammerhand is listed in the Special Rules section?
My rulebook must be defective because I can't find them. The page number would help.

Jeffersonian - so you are repeating the utterly debunked argument that psychic powers are special rules?

Surely not, as that would be dishonest.

As has been cited and quoted in both previous threads, pg. 32 of the BRB informs us that any ability that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game follow the restrictions in the Special Rules section. Examples of such rules breaking/bending abilities include modifiers to model characteristics, which are also listed on pg. 32. Further, we are told on the same page that such abilities are found in Wargear, Scenarios, Terrain, and Psychic Powers. To top it all off, we are told that the list of Universal Special Rules is not exclusive, only listing to most common special rules found in the game, which includes the USR Psyker, an ability that details further rules can be found in the Psychic Powers section.

Since all Blessings, all Maledictions, and some psychic shooting attaches contain additional rules that bend or break some basic rules of the game, such as applying modifiers, change the order of operations, replacing wounding mechanics, or granting a USR, those powers do fall under the Special Rules restrictions as detailed on pg. 32.

As such, unless otherwise noted, the effects from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. However, multiple applications of the same modifier from different abilities are cumulative. An example would be a unit that is being charged by multiple units with Rad Grenades and the Enfeeble power. No matter how many times the targeted unit is effected by Rad Grenades or Enfeeble, that unit will only ever take a -1 T for the first Rad Grenade, and a -1 T from the first Enfeeble, because neither Rad Grenades nor Enfeeble contain verbiage granting the ability to stack from multiple uses.

Hammerhand + Might of Titan will stack per pg. 2, but Hammerhand + Hammerhand will not stack per pages 32 and 68.

SJ

So +1 s is a special rule?

Found that page and para yet?

Nothing you state dis true, and has been debunked in every thread you've tried it. At this point you are simply trolling by reporting something you know to be false

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Since all Blessings, all Maledictions, and some psychic shooting attaches contain additional rules that bend or break some basic rules of the game, such as applying modifiers, change the order of operations, replacing wounding mechanics, or granting a USR, those powers do fall under the Special Rules restrictions as detailed on pg. 32.

You're making a leap here that is unsupported by actual rules.
Some support for your assumption would be nice - for once. I don't expect any, but it'd be nice.

Where in the BRB does it state that the effects of identical psychic powers are cumulative? Or that a subsequent casting of a power already in effect has any effect at all?

As I've already cited, it definitely does say that the effects of different powers are cumulative. Why would they bother explicitly stating different powers are cumulative if they meant identical powers as well?

It's clear that some perople are deliberately misinterpreting the actual rules in order to seek advantage, or even just for the sake of argument.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Where in the BRB does it state that the effects of identical psychic powers are cumulative? Or that a subsequent casting of a power already in effect has any effect at all?

As I've already cited, it definitely does say that the effects of different powers are cumulative. Why would they bother explicitly stating different powers are cumulative if they meant identical powers as well?

It's clear that some perople are deliberately misinterpreting the actual rules in order to seek advantage, or even just for the sake of argument.

Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists. That denial does not actually exist in the rules, despite your accusations.
It's clear that some "perople" are deliberately misinterpreting why people argue the way they do. I'm arguing this because that's what the rules actually say - my local groups have ruled that they don't stack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So +1 s is a special rule?

Found that page and para yet?

Nothing you state dis true, and has been debunked in every thread you've tried it. At this point you are simply trolling by reporting something you know to be false

You've never successfully debunked, disproven, nor actually proven anything in the past three threads on this very subject. If you had, we wouldn't be at 40 pages of circular argument. Disagree all you want, the Non-Stacking side has a valid claim that RAW supports no stacking without permission. The Stacking side has put forth no argument beyond "pg. 2 ", "permission to resolve", and the classic "it doesn't say we can't".

And unlike the Stacker crowd, the Non-Stackers agree the issue is unclear enough that it requires an FAQ or Errata from GW to resolve. Baring that, we need to either discuss the issue with our opponents or follow the TO's ruling if in a tournament.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Disagree all you want, the Non-Stacking side has a valid claim that RAW supports no stacking without permission.

Well since we have actually shown permission the Non-Stacking side does not have a leg to stand on.

The Stacking side has put forth no argument beyond "pg. 2 ", "permission to resolve",

Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.

Denial of this permission, however, has never been shown by the opposition...

and the classic "it doesn't say we can't".

We never said that.

And unlike the Stacker crowd, the Non-Stackers agree the issue is unclear enough that it requires an FAQ or Errata from GW to resolve. Baring that, we need to either discuss the issue with our opponents or follow the TO's ruling if in a tournament.

SJ

Because the Non-Stackers are ignoring the evidence.

rigeld2 wrote:

Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists.

has been shown wrong countless times now
resolution is nothing more then determining the outcome . That is the definition of it , it in no way gives you permission to do anything

Evidence? What evidence? Before you answer please only reference the psychic power section of the brb or codex powers.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.

You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.

You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.

This indeed, unless the power has specific express permission in its own rules to be cumulative with itself as cited numerous times.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists.

has been shown wrong countless times now
resolution is nothing more then determining the outcome . That is the definition of it , it in no way gives you permission to do anything

Really?

page 67 wrote: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.

I am required (by the rules) to follow the instructions in the powers entry. That's what resolution means for psychic powers in 40k. Your statement is wholly without merit.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Indeed, we have permission to cast and resolve the power twice, then since there are 2 modifiers you use page 2 to determine what happens next, all neat and clean RAW.

You can indeed resolve it twice. Whether you resolve it once, twice, or twelve times, the power 'is in effect'. The power being in effect results a single modifier.

Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.

Talking about psychic tests first you target a unit, then take a Psychic Test and "If the test is passed, the psychic power is manifested successfully and can be resolved" (67)

You are told to resolve the power.

In the case of Hammerhand that means increasing the units Str by 1.

We have permission to cast the power again on the same unit as per page 67-68 so we resolve the next casting of hammerhand and we get another +1 Str.

Base Str4 +1 from first casting, +1 from second casting. Quick look at multiple modifiers on page 2 = 4+1+1=6

Undeniable proof.

The instructions in its entry allow stacking? No, only allows different powers to accumulate. How about the power itself? Doesn't have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself? The the power resolves as sustaining the effect and not adding to it.

 Bausk wrote:
The instructions in its entry allow stacking? No, only allows different powers to accumulate. How about the power itself? Doesn't have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself? The the power resolves as sustaining the effect and not adding to it.

Citation needed.

there are no rules for enfeeble two,

its the same power as enfeeble, your whole argument relies on there being two different powers when there really is only one identical power,

also, USR rules specifically states that NOT every special rule is in that section, and that the USR section is not an exhaustive list of special rules.
It also outlines what special rules are, with psychic powers and things such as modifying str being mentioned in the USR preface text on pg 32 BRB

what special rules do I have? on pg 32 specifically calls out powers.

OFC when I take the time to type these out, I am shouted down, and told they are "fluff" because : REASONS!


every other power that stacks with itself, has an exception written into its particular power's special rules for a reason. there are many examples of powers with this exception, and many in 6th ed codexes.

psyker, is 100% raw a special rule, and in the USR section.

cast a power, without using a special rule (so nothing from pg66 BRB psykers)

oh you cant? thats because its a special rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.

"This power" in the power descriptions refers to that power in general, instead of individual instances of it (or it doesn't... but it is impossible to prove either way.)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
The instructions in its entry allow stacking? No, only allows different powers to accumulate. How about the power itself? Doesn't have specific express permission to be cumulative with itself? The the power resolves as sustaining the effect and not adding to it.

Citation needed.

Already cited numerous times across these threads. There is grey areas for both sides of the argument but the numerous references lean in favour of nonstacking blessing/maladictions over stacking.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Permission exists to resolve the powers. Resolution requires applying the effect. You're assuming a denial exists because a reminder exists.

has been shown wrong countless times now
resolution is nothing more then determining the outcome . That is the definition of it , it in no way gives you permission to do anything

Really?

page 67 wrote: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.

I am required (by the rules) to follow the instructions in the powers entry. That's what resolution means for psychic powers in 40k. Your statement is wholly without merit.

incorrect , that is not what resolution means .

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/resolve

lets replace it with definition

Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "determine the outcome" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry.
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "solve" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "reach a decision" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "to find a solution" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry
Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the enemy did not nullify it through a successful Deny the Witch roll, you can now "to bring about a successful conclusion" the psychic power according to instructions in its entry

at no point you are required to apply the effect , resolving it means you determine what just happened ,
in game terms its a stop point where you determine all the applicable variables and come to a conclusion which you apply and then move on

kambien wrote:
incorrect , that is not what resolution means .

That's not what it means?
When I quoted the rule that says exactly that - it actually means something different? You're told to follow the instructions in its entry. Correct?
Are there any instructions in the entry that forbid the modifiers from stacking? Any at all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Enfeeble1 is in effect. Enfeeble2 is also in effect. You're not allowing Enfeeble2 to follow the instructions in its entry. Why are you denying the resolution of Enfeeble2? Surely you have a rule allowing you to deny it.

"This power" in the power descriptions refers to that power in general, instead of individual instances of it (or it doesn't... but it is impossible to prove either way.)

So you don't have a rule denying it, just an assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you are not actually following the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
its the same power as enfeeble, your whole argument relies on there being two different powers when there really is only one identical power,

You're failing to understand my argument then.

what special rules do I have? on pg 32 specifically calls out powers.

It really doesn't - none that apply to modifiers anyway.

p32 wrote:Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers, scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.

Notice how some psychic powers grant Special Rules like Feel No Pain and Relentless?

every other power that stacks with itself, has an exception written into its particular power's special rules for a reason. there are many examples of powers with this exception, and many in 6th ed codexes.

The bolded is an assumption.

psyker, is 100% raw a special rule, and in the USR section.

cast a power, without using a special rule (so nothing from pg66 BRB psykers)

oh you cant? thats because its a special rule.

Completely correct. And absolutely irrelevant.

rigeld2 wrote:

So you don't have a rule denying it, just an assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you are not actually following the rules.

My assumption has exactly as strong RAW backing as yours. However, unlike you, I actually realise that it can be interpreted in two equally valid ways. And I chose my interpretation because there's RAI support for it from the other parts of the rules.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So you don't have a rule denying it, just an assumption. Thanks for clarifying that you are not actually following the rules.

My assumption has exactly as strong RAW backing as yours. However, unlike you, I actually realise that it can be interpreted in two equally valid ways. And I chose my interpretation because there's RAI support for it from the other parts of the rules.

By not following the text of the power you are not following the rules. It's pretty much that simple.

rigeld2 wrote:

By not following the text of the power you are not following the rules. It's pretty much that simple.

I follow the rules. Enfeeble is in effect, modifiers happen. Number of Enfeebles doesn't affect this.