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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy.

Not in this case, as we already have permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score.

We are saying "Find the restriction" not "it does doesn't say I can't".

Now since you can not "Find the restriction" your argument is invalid, and you need to concede.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy.

Not in this case, as we already have permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score.

We are saying "Find the restriction" not "it does doesn't say I can't".

Now since you can not "Find the restriction" your argument is invalid, and you need to concede.

I don't believe you understand the nature of the argument. The restriction is plainly written on pg. 68. You don't believe the plainly written restriction applies, calling it a "reminder". I believe the plainly written restriction is a rule that does apply. That is the core of the argument.

I don't need to find a restriction, its already there in plain English. You do need to find permission, because we've pointed out 4 passages from the BRB that inform us what is cumulative and what is not. Per the BRB, modifiers from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative without specific permission. Where is your specific permission? "Permission to cast, permission to resolve" do not mean what you think they mean. Yes, we can cast the same power multiple times on the same target, and yes, the power is applied each time. But is the modifier cumulative or non- cumulative? Per the BRB, the source of the modifier must be either different or have written permission in its own rules. It is your task to locate permission for Hammerhand to be cumulative.

Here's a hint: It doesn't exist in 6th. No where will you find this permission written in 6th. The only place this was written was in the last BRB FAQ released for 5th, and that FAQ was superseded by the very first BRB FAQ released for 6th.

I will accept the fact that your proof is non-existant as a concession on your part that your argument has no substance.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Saying "it does not say same powers are not cumulative" is the same as saying "it does doesn't say I can't", which in a permissive rule set is a fallacy.

Not in this case, as we already have permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score.

We are saying "Find the restriction" not "it does doesn't say I can't".

Now since you can not "Find the restriction" your argument is invalid, and you need to concede.

I don't believe you understand the nature of the argument. The restriction is plainly written on pg. 68.

It really does not say Same powers are not cumulative...

You need to re-read page 68 for what it actually says.

You do need to find permission,

I have, you are ignoring it.

It is your task to locate permission for Hammerhand to be cumulative.

Again we have already but I will regurgitate it once more so that you can understand it.

We are given permission to cast and resolve "according to instructions in its entry." both castings of Hammerhand. This involves adding +1 to the unit's Str score.

There is the permission.

Find the restriction because I have proven permission.

So your argument is that Hammerhand is different from Hammerhand? Interesting...

So Death reaper are you saying:

1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.

Which of those two are you claiming is true?

Seeing as how the rules were written by a group of people, and not just one, it is possible that different parts were written by different people and there was a mis-communication.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Death reaper are you saying:

1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.

Which of those two are you claiming is true?

What are you talking about, I did not say either of those things.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Come to think of it, saying the modifiers from Hammerhand don't stack would be like saying wounds from 'same' witchfires don't stack. In fact they likely intentionally left out any rule that the effects of 'same' powers don't stack to avoid any absurd arguments like that.

My stance on blessings/maledictions remains the same but Hammerhand is neither of those. In MTG terms it's more like an instant as opposed to an enchantment.

So you are in agreement that Psychic powers can stack?

What about Terrify, if you cast Terrify from two different psykers how many Morale checks must the unit take? (A: should be two)

Or Gate of Infinity, can two psykers both cast GoI when attached to a single unit? (A: should be Yes)

Yes to both as neither the moral check from terrify nor the DS from GOI is contingent upon the power being sustained on the unit. Those are one time effects and occur once per successful use of the power, there is no need for them to be cumulative.

How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)

Wait, Jeffersonian is still claiming the reminder is a restriction? Despite that being a fallacy to do so?

 Abandon wrote:
How long do you think the 4+ cover save from Fire Shield lasts? (read the power carefully)

Well Fire shield is a blessing, so it lasts as long as any other blessing til the end of the following turn.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Death reaper are you saying:

1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.

Which of those two are you claiming is true?

What are you talking about, I did not say either of those things.

You're saying when they wrote "different psychic powers are always cumulative" (three times) that it is just a reminder. But to remind some one in this way is misleading because the implication of that sentence is that the same power is not cumulative. Just like if they stated "special rules that start with the letter S are never cumulative with themselves" the implication is that special rules that don't start with the letter S are cumulative with themselves. That's how normal English usage works. So when they wrote that "different powers are cumulative" was it because:

1) the person who wrote the rule did not know that psychic powers are cumulative by default. Or in other words the person who wrote the psychic powers rules doesn't know the psychic powers rules as well as you do.
2) the person who wrote the psychic powers rulers was trying to deliberately mislead us with this half reminder.

So every time you are claim that the different powers are cumulative rules are reminders you are claiming one of the above is true. Which one?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So Death reaper are you saying:

1) Whoever wrote the Psychic PPowers rules did not know the psychic powers rules.
2) whoever wrote the psychic powers rules wanted to deliberately mislead the reader.

Which of those two are you claiming is true?

What are you talking about, I did not say either of those things.

You're saying when they wrote "different psychic powers are always cumulative" (three times) that it is just a reminder. But to remind some one in this way is misleading because the implication of that sentence is that the same power is not cumulative. Just like if they stated "special rules that start with the letter S are never cumulative with themselves" the implication is that special rules that don't start with the letter S are cumulative with themselves. That's how normal English usage works. So when they wrote that "different powers are cumulative" was it because:

1) the person who wrote the rule did not know that psychic powers are cumulative by default. Or in other words the person who wrote the psychic powers rules doesn't know the psychic powers rules as well as you do.
2) the person who wrote the psychic powers rulers was trying to deliberately mislead us with this half reminder.

So every time you are claim that the different powers are cumulative rules are reminders you are claiming one of the above is true. Which one?

Neither, it is a simple reminder, nothing more nothing less.

It is not a simple reminder. It is a reminder that implies that the same psychic powers don't stack. Or are you denying that this sentence implies that. Because if you are then the multiple threads on this topic prove you wrong.

So given it is a reminder that misleads people in a way that is obvious. Which of those two is true? One has to be true if it is a reminder. So which one?

A) Who says that everything misleading in the rules is intentional?
B) Implied =/= actual rules

 DeathReaper wrote:

Neither, it is a simple reminder, nothing more nothing less.

Reminder of what? Why we need a reminder about a specific subsection of powers being cumulative in general rules for psychic powers if all powers are in fact cumulative?

1) If they wrote "different power are cumulative" as a reminder it is clear from normal English usage the implication is that the same power does not stack. Yes they are not always hot on the exact RaW meaning of what they wrote but this is clear plain English. So they will have known that the implication is that the same power does not stack. So they either knew the same power does stack in which case they are misleading us. Or the person who wrote the rulers on psychic powers stacking does not know the rules for psychic powers stacking.

2) true I'm not claiming the "different powers are cumulative" means that the RaW is the same power is not cumulative (as pointed out I've a different argument on that which has gone in circles for 3 threads).

So you're still making one of those 2 claims. Which is it?

Or it is a remainder that the effects of different powers are always cumulative, because sometimes the effects of multiple manifestations are not.

Or it is a remainder that the effects of different powers are always cumulative, because sometimes the effects of multiple manifestations are not.

Why single out different powers if the same power is cumulative with itself? Why remind people about a subset when it would have been easier remind people about the entire set?

Like if they wrote:

"special rules that start with the letter S are never cumulative with themselves"

Why would you single out special rules that start with S if this was true for all special rules? You'd only do that if you weren't aware it was true for all special rules or you wanted to mislead the reader.

Because not powers have effects that are cumulative with themselves? Because the game designers are only human? Because the rules don't have great quality control? Because they feel like if the didn't deliberately spell it out there would be grognards claiming you couldn't resolve Enfeeble on something already affected by Iron Arm?

It only implies a restriction if you don't understand basic logic,.

None of those explanations work in this instance as you well know Prince Raven:

Because not [all] powers have effects that are cumulative with themselves?

It already includes the "unless otherwise stated" clause as you well know so this can't be the reason and is just as valid for different powers.

Because the game designers are only human?

This is not human error unless your claiming that the wording "different" shouldn't be there in which case you need an errata to back you up. Which again you know you don't have.

Because the rules don't have great quality control?

See above.

Because they feel like if the didn't deliberately spell it out there would be grognards claiming you couldn't resolve Enfeeble on something already affected by Iron Arm?

This would hold water if the same wouldn't be true if they removed the word "different" from the rule. Again as you well know just saying "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple psychic powers are cumulative" would have cleared that up without creating confusion. The use of the word different means that either the same doesn't stack, the writer was unaware that the same doesn't stack or the writer was intentionally misleading us.

So please tell me which of the two options you believe to be true or concede.

Removing the "different" would actually make a huge change, as that would state that all powers are cumulative with themselves when some are clearly not.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Removing the "different" would actually make a huge change, as that would state that all powers are cumulative with themselves when some are clearly not.

Which powers? Name them so I know what you mean.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
B) Implied =/= actual rules

Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
B) Implied =/= actual rules

Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.

SJ

Isn't that why they had to put this in the FAQ, seeing as the RAW in the BRB allowed models to move through other friendly models (enemies were expressly forbidden by the whole not approaching within 1" thing)?

Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules

Also, it is page 4 of the BRB FAQ, first question in the FAQ section.

FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Removing the "different" would actually make a huge change, as that would state that all powers are cumulative with themselves when some are clearly not.

Which powers? Name them so I know what you mean.

Off the top of my head; endurance, prescience, guide, catalyst, onslaught, foreboding, perfect timing, telekine dome and invisibility are all clearly non-cumulativewith themselves.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
B) Implied =/= actual rules

Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.

SJ

The rule you're thinking of is actually found in the rulebok FAQ on page 4.

Off the top of my head; endurance, prescience, guide, catalyst, onslaught, foreboding, perfect timing, telekine dome and invisibility are all clearly non-cumulativewith themselves

So you're basically on the non-stacking side except for the odd case where they don't contain the "whilst this power is in effect" wording. Correct? In which case the wording of different would make a difference as these powers could be said to be cumulative with themselves without it.

I'm cool with that and see nothing inherently wrong with that interpretation (as the wording of different has a purpose, other than to deliberately mislead) there's a lack of consistency for my liking but handling differently worded powers differently makes sense.

Banbaji wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
B) Implied =/= actual rules

Please cite the rule in the BRB that tells us models are not allowed to move through other models. Page number and paragraph, please.

SJ

Isn't that why they had to put this in the FAQ, seeing as the RAW in the BRB allowed models to move through other friendly models (enemies were expressly forbidden by the whole not approaching within 1" thing)?

Q: Can models move through other friendly models? (p10)
A: No. Models that are an exception to this rule, such as
Jump Infantry or Jetbikes, will state this clearly in their rules

Also, it is page 4 of the BRB FAQ, first question in the FAQ section.

The rule in question is an example of an implied rule, as the BRB only implies that models cannot normally move through other models, to which an FAQ later clarified. My point is that implied rules have weight. Another implied rule is that same powers are not normally cumulative, as seen by the different powers are cumulative "reminder".

SJ

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It only implies a restriction if you don't understand basic logic,.

We understand basic logic just fine. You however do not seem to understand how language is actually used. "Parking allowed on Sundays" pretty strongly implies that it is not allowed on other days of the week.

 Crimson wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

Neither, it is a simple reminder, nothing more nothing less.

Reminder of what? Why we need a reminder about a specific subsection of powers being cumulative in general rules for psychic powers if all powers are in fact cumulative?

Why do we need a reminder that we can move some or none of our units?

"In your turn, you can move any of your units - all of them if you wish - up to their maximum movement distance." (10) "Note that you don't have to move all (or any) of your units " (10) Redundant reminder...

Or that "you may check the range and line of sight to multiple enemy units before deciding which one to shoot at and declaring it to your opponent." (12) when we are told "You can always check any distance at any time." (4) Redundant reminder...

Why did we need this reminder "Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather than through it."(18) when we are specifically told that only shots that go "through the gaps between models in an intervening unit" (18) grant a cover save. Redundant reminder...

There are redundant reminders all over that book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It only implies a restriction if you don't understand basic logic,.

We understand basic logic just fine. You however do not seem to understand how language is actually used. "Parking allowed on Sundays" pretty strongly implies that it is not allowed on other days of the week.

In that situation there would be a rule on the books that said no parking in that area, the sign would be an exception.

Because if there was not a rule stating no parking, then that sign would simply be a reminder.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The rule in question is an example of an implied rule, as the BRB only implies that models cannot normally move through other models, to which an FAQ later clarified. My point is that implied rules have weight. Another implied rule is that same powers are not normally cumulative, as seen by the different powers are cumulative "reminder".

SJ

The rules actually say that you can not move through a space occupied by another model.

"This is an exception to the normal rules for moving that state that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model." (30)

The normal rules state what? " that a model cannot move through a space occupied by another model." (30)