Stacking of psychic powers?

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.

**sirlynchmob**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sir lynch - I'd respond further, but life is too short to continue to rehash your errors, hoping a light will go on.

I'll learn not to click "show this post" in future.

Odd you keep claiming I'm wrong, yet have not provide a single rule in this entire thread to indicate otherwise.

Keep to your opinions and mark your arguments HYWPI, I'll stick with RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 2 applies to wargear and special rules. and you claim psychic powers are neither. therefore pg 2 does not apply the way you think it does.

this is only partially correct.

P.2 applies to all modifiers regardless of the source.

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values." (Multiple Modifiers BRB P. 2)

As page 2 is the last and least of my argument, are you agreeing that everything else I posted is correct? As I've already shown psychic powers cause special rules, nitpicking about pg 2 does nothing for your case.

especially when you skip over Modifiers = "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify" so if you don't have any modifiers to start with, then you'd never have any multiple modifiers.

but as psychic powers create special rules, they can then modify the characteristics following all the limitations of special rules.

**DeathReaper**

sirlynchmob wrote:
As page 2 is the last and least of my argument, are you agreeing that everything else I posted is correct?

No, I never mentioned the rest of your post, my post was specific to one part of your post.

As I've already shown psychic powers cause special rules, nitpicking about pg 2 does nothing for your case.

No you have not.

You have shown that psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules to come into effect. Big difference.

+1 Strength is not a special rule, unless you have a rules quote that proves otherwise...

especially when you skip over Modifiers = "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify" so if you don't have any modifiers to start with, then you'd never have any multiple modifiers.

but as psychic powers create special rules, they can then modify the characteristics following all the limitations of special rules.

Again, psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules, not always.

**Eihnlazer**

A psychic power is not a special rule, not sure were you thought you ever had rules to back that.

Arguing about them at this point is all semantics acctually.

They were badly written and some still come from previous editions of the game.

The only real contention at this point with psychic powers is whether "different psychic powers" means powers cast from different psychers or powers with different names.

**sirlynchmob**

DeathReaper wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
As page 2 is the last and least of my argument, are you agreeing that everything else I posted is correct?

No, I never mentioned the rest of your post, my post was specific to one part of your post.

As I've already shown psychic powers cause special rules, nitpicking about pg 2 does nothing for your case.

No you have not.

You have shown that psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules to come into effect. Big difference.

+1 Strength is not a special rule, unless you have a rules quote that proves otherwise...

especially when you skip over Modifiers = "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify" so if you don't have any modifiers to start with, then you'd never have any multiple modifiers.

but as psychic powers create special rules, they can then modify the characteristics following all the limitations of special rules.

Again, psychic powers can sometimes cause special rules, not always.

If you're not going to meantion the rest of my post, which clearly shows RAW what I've been saying. Then there really is no need to jump to the last point in my post.

pg 32 "a special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons OR A BOOST TO IT'S STR"

Yes a boost to it's str is a special rule. RAW

**DeathReaper**

sirlynchmob wrote:

If you're not going to meantion the rest of my post, which clearly shows RAW what I've been saying. Then there really is no need to jump to the last point in my post.

pg 32 "a special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons OR A BOOST TO IT'S STR"

Yes a boost to it's str is a special rule. RAW

(Emphasis mine)
a boost to it's str is NOT a special rule.

Note the underlined, this is not true in all cases as "a special rule might"...

Reread what you quoted, it does not say that all +1 stat boosts are a special rule.

Furious charge is a special rule that gives a model "A BOOST TO IT'S STR"

Hammerhand is not a special rule, even though it gives a +1 to str...

**FlingitNow**

The only real contention at this point with psychic powers is whether "different psychic powers" means powers cast from different psychers or powers with different names.

Not really true as both sides of the argument accept that different powers refers to differently named powers not different instances of the same power. So that has been put to bed.

**jeffersonian000**

While Hammerhand is not a Special Rule, both the +1 Str and the ability to apply that Str bonus before multipliers count as Special Rules because they bend or break the basic rules of the game.

SJ

**Happyjew**

Just because Special Rules bend or break the basic rules does not mean that every thing that does so is a special rule.

Or are you claiming that Unit Type is a special rule as it bends or breaks the basic rules of the game?

**jeffersonian000**

Happyjew wrote:
Just because Special Rules bend or break the basic rules does not mean that every thing that does so is a special rule.

Or are you claiming that Unit Type is a special rule as it bends or breaks the basic rules of the game?

Actually, any rule that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are by definition Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB.

Are Unit Types cumulative? How do Unit Types bend or break to basic rules?

SJ

**Happyjew**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Just because Special Rules bend or break the basic rules does not mean that every thing that does so is a special rule.

Or are you claiming that Unit Type is a special rule as it bends or breaks the basic rules of the game?

Actually, any rule that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are by definition Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB.

Are Unit Types cumulative? How do Unit Types bend or break to basic rules?

SJ

Basic rule - a model can fire a single weapon in the shooting phase.
Unit Type Monstrous Creature - can fire two weapons in the shooting phase.

Oh, look. Monstrous Creature Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to fire as single weapon.

Basic rule - models can move up to 6" in the movement phase.
Unit Type Beasts can move up to 12" in the movement phase.

Oh look. Beast Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to move up to 6".

Shall I continue?

**Abandon**

nosferatu1001 wrote: You have permission to resolve the power, and permission to resolve 1+1, so you need nothing more than that.

This assumes that it is cumulative. If the effect created by the power is not cumulative, then there is no additional +1 as that already exists. More or greater effect(stacking) by adding more of the same is a trait that cumulative things posses. Non-cumulatively, resolving the power twice does nothing more than resolving it once.

I'd be ok with stacking them but the BRB tells us what is cumulative and 'same' powers are not among them.

PrinceRaven wrote:So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?

Wording of specific powers aside (don't have a copy of this one) my general claim would be based not on denial but rather a lack of permission to add further effect. A cumulative nature could be assumed if the book said nothing about it anywhere but as the BRB defines what is cumulative for us it seems to me it is something that must be specifically permitted.

**Happyjew**

Abandon wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote: You have permission to resolve the power, and permission to resolve 1+1, so you need nothing more than that.

This assumes that it is cumulative. If the effect created by the power is not cumulative, then there is no additional +1 as that already exists. More or greater effect(stacking) by adding more of the same is a trait that cumulative things posses. Non-cumulatively, resolving the power twice does nothing more than resolving it once.

I'd be ok with stacking them but the BRB tells us what is cumulative and 'same' powers are not among them.

PrinceRaven wrote:So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?

Wording of specific powers aside (don't have a copy of this one) my general claim would be based not on denial but rather a lack of permission to add further effect. A cumulative nature could be assumed if the book said nothing about it anywhere but as the BRB defines what is cumulative for us it seems to me it is something that must be specifically permitted.

While I do believe that the same power can stack, I disagree with the whole "They stack because of maths" viewpoint.

It's circular logic - they stack because they stack.

Why does it stack?
Because we have permission to add multiple modifiers.
Why do we have multiple modifiers?
Because the power stacks.

**jeffersonian000**

Happyjew wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Just because Special Rules bend or break the basic rules does not mean that every thing that does so is a special rule.

Or are you claiming that Unit Type is a special rule as it bends or breaks the basic rules of the game?

Actually, any rule that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are by definition Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB.

Are Unit Types cumulative? How do Unit Types bend or break to basic rules?

SJ

Basic rule - a model can fire a single weapon in the shooting phase.
Unit Type Monstrous Creature - can fire two weapons in the shooting phase.

Oh, look. Monstrous Creature Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to fire as single weapon.

Basic rule - models can move up to 6" in the movement phase.
Unit Type Beasts can move up to 12" in the movement phase.

Oh look. Beast Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to move up to 6".

Shall I continue?

Please do. Let me know when you get to a point.

SJ

**Abandon**

Happyjew wrote:

While I do believe that the same power can stack, I disagree with the whole "They stack because of maths" viewpoint.

It's circular logic - they stack because they stack.

Why does it stack?
Because we have permission to add multiple modifiers.
Why do we have multiple modifiers?
Because the power stacks.

Agreed. I've pointed this out in several previous threads as well with many of the same people yet they keep saying it as if repetition can make it true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I believe that same powers do not generally stack but the argument that they are Special Rules is hopelessly flawed IMO.

**Happyjew**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
jeffersonian000 wrote:
Happyjew wrote:
Just because Special Rules bend or break the basic rules does not mean that every thing that does so is a special rule.

Or are you claiming that Unit Type is a special rule as it bends or breaks the basic rules of the game?

Actually, any rule that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are by definition Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB.

Are Unit Types cumulative? How do Unit Types bend or break to basic rules?

SJ

Basic rule - a model can fire a single weapon in the shooting phase.
Unit Type Monstrous Creature - can fire two weapons in the shooting phase.

Oh, look. Monstrous Creature Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to fire as single weapon.

Basic rule - models can move up to 6" in the movement phase.
Unit Type Beasts can move up to 12" in the movement phase.

Oh look. Beast Unit Type breaks the basic rule of only being able to move up to 6".

Shall I continue?

Please do. Let me know when you get to a point.

SJ

My point is that according to you, Unit Types are special rules (they break basic rules), Melee weapons are special rules (they can grant a Strength bonus), Wargear are special rules (they can grant special rules). Apparently, everything is a special rule according to your "if it bends or breaks the basic rules it must be a special rule" stance.

**PrinceRaven**

jeffersonian000 wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
So you say that having cast Hammerhand on a unit previously denies permission for Hammerhand to be resolved "according to instructions in its entry"?
Since it's so clear what the answer is, I'm sure you can cite the rule that provides this denial of permission?

That would be Hang Up #2: "Permission to resolve equals permission to apply modifiers equals modifiers are cumulative", a common fallacy.

Permission to resolve is not permission to be cumulative. An example is multiple castings of Enfeeble on a Chimera. Permission to resolve? Yes. Is it cumulative? No.

Look at pg. 25 of the Grey Knights codex. No language is present advising us that the +1 to Str from Hammerhand is cumulative with multiple castings, yet Might of Titan does contain language stating its +1 to Str is cumulative with Hammerhand's +1 to Str. This is an example on the same page of the same codex of the permission required for stacking. The interesting part is that this permission predates 6th edition, implying that in 5th, modifers didn't stack without specific permission. 6th edition has not provided general permission, either, yet does allow specific permission as seen in the 6th Ed Chaos Space Marine codex.

So, let me throw back on to you: where is your permission to allow Hammerhand to be cumulative?

SJ

"If a model has a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic, first apply any multipliers, then apply any additions or subtractions, and finally apply any set values" - page 2

I have a combination of rules that modify the Strength characteristic in two castings of Hammerhand.

Also, the assumption that all rules are inherently non-cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.

**Abandon**

The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.

Truth is the BRB does tell us what is cumulative. Same powers are not list as such.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.

Rules, no, modifiers, yes...

**PrinceRaven**

Abandon wrote:
The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.

Truth is the BRB does tell us what is cumulative. Same powers are not list as such.

Lasgun wounds aren't explicitly stated to be cumulative, does that mean you can only wound a model with the same Lasgun once?
No, it doesn't, because we have permission to allocate the wounds and explicit permission to do so cumulatively isn't necessary.

Replace "Lasgun" with "Hammerhand", "wound" with "granting +1 strength" and "allocate" with "resolve".

**Abandon**

DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.

Rules, no, modifiers, yes...

So a unit that has one instances of a non-cumulative rule that says it gets +1T and another instance of the same rule what is the total outcome? +1T. If the rules do not stack the no additional modifiers is added at all.

Non cumulatively
rule + rule = rule
power + power = power

No matter how many times you apply the power you cannot show that more than one instance of it is having an effect without assuming it is cumulative. They do not add up. You cannot even really say there are two of them there without adding them together because that is a total amount after addition. That is the basic nature of non-cumulative things and why it is so easy to overlook mistakes by a highly ingrained automatic process of adding things together. You paint the wall grey then you paint it grey again. Is it now twice as grey? No. You added grey to grey and you got grey. There are not two enfeebles on a unit there is just Enfeeble. Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble ...because it's not cumulative.

**DeathReaper**

Abandon wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:
Abandon wrote:
The assumption that all rules are inherently cumulative isn't part of the basic rules of the game.

Rules, no, modifiers, yes...

So a unit that has one instances of a non-cumulative rule that says it gets +1T and another instance of the same rule what is the total outcome? +1T. If the rules do not stack the no additional modifiers is added at all.

Non cumulatively
rule + rule = rule
power + power = power

No matter how many times you apply the power you cannot show that more than one instance of it is having an effect without assuming it is cumulative. They do not add up. You cannot even really say there are two of them there without adding them together because that is a total amount after addition. That is the basic nature of non-cumulative things and why it is so easy to overlook mistakes by a highly ingrained automatic process of adding things together. You paint the wall grey then you paint it grey again. Is it now twice as grey? No. You added grey to grey and you got grey. There are not two enfeebles on a unit there is just Enfeeble. Enfeeble + Enfeeble = Enfeeble ...because it's not cumulative.

Except the rule, in this case gives a +1 modifier, it is not simply rule + rule.

One Psychic Power gives +1 and we have permission to cast and resolve that rule.

Another, of the same psychic power gives +1 and we have permission to cast and resolve that rule as well.

Please, just once, find the denial of that permission.

**Abandon**

right...

so 'rule = +1X'

rule + rule = rule = +1X

That +1 is cumulative with +1 does not matter if the rule itself is not cumulative.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

Please, just once, find the denial of that permission.

Never denied it and I don't think I could if I wanted to. I'm just asking for permission to have two of the same power (that then creates the modifier) on the target. Unless you can show they are cumulative you can only effectively have one.

**PrinceRaven**

That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.

**Abandon**

PrinceRaven wrote:
That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.

You use it twice and resolve it twice. If they are not cumulative, how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit? Remember any addition to force or quantity by adding more is treating it cumulatively.

There lies the assumption. You cannot have more than one if it's not cumulative. Non-cumulatively you can use it and resolve it all you want and the number will not change.

**nosferatu1001**

As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

**Abandon**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.

**PrinceRaven**

Abandon wrote:
PrinceRaven wrote:
That's like asking "where does it say in the rules you can shoot at marines painted purple", once you have permission to do something you can do it. Extra circumstances, such as marines being painted purple, it being Tuesday, or Hammerhand already being resolved previously on the unit do not deny this permission unless stated in the rules that they do.

You use it twice and resolve it twice. If they are not cumulative, how many Hammerhands are effecting the unit? Remember any addition to force or quantity by adding more is treating it cumulatively.

There lies the assumption. You cannot have more than one if it's not cumulative. Non-cumulatively you can use it and resolve it all you want and the number will not change.

Hammerhand is not "in effect" on the unit, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength. Then I cast Hammerhand again, it activates, it resolves, the unit gains +1 strength.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abandon wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You gain +1 strength on the model for each Hammerhand cast until it is at strength 10. Nice try though.

**nosferatu1001**

Abandon wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.

So -1W is cumulative, but +1S isnt?

Nice try though..

**kambien**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Abandon wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
As above. Again, las gun wounds cannot be cumulative, as you are not told anywhere that they are.

And round we go, with the no stack unable to deny the permission inherent in page two, or the other sources.

By the wording of the process it is very clear that it is cumulative. You remove a wound from the model for each wound allocated until it is reduced to zero wounds and is removed. Nice try though.

So -1W is cumulative, but +1S isnt?

Nice try though..

las guns don't even cause wounds , no weapon does. This argument is flawed form the start

**nosferatu1001**

A lasgun causes wounds, as without firing a lasgun you cannot cause a wound. If your claim is that it is the roll to-wound that causes a wound, then DE would like a word with you, as by your reckoning they never cause a unit to be removed as a cauality