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.

what, because they roll to in between? Psychic powers roll psychic tests to manifest, does that mean they don't cause their effects

Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.

Stratos wrote:
Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.

The no stacking side makes zero assumptions and follows what is written. The stacking side assumes that powers inherently stack and assumes the writers are intentionally misleading us by repeatedly "reminding" us that different powers stack with never stating that the same powers stack.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Stratos wrote:
Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.

The no stacking side makes zero assumptions and follows what is written. The stacking side assumes that powers inherently stack and assumes the writers are intentionally misleading us by repeatedly "reminding" us that different powers stack with never stating that the same powers stack.

I'm sorry but this is your assumption on what some people are saying. Does not appear to be the general consensus. Intentionally misleading?

I have no opinion i read the topic objectively and it must be said your "side" is making plenty of assumptions.

I, for one, do not have enough faith in the writers' abilities to say that any misleading they do is intentional.

The no stacking side has made a number of assumptions, including:
- Psychic powers are special rules
- Different powers stacking means multiple iterations of the same power don't rather than some powers are cumulative and some aren't
- Everything is inherently non-cumulative despite only the special rules section stating this to be the case
- Every other rule that would be affected by treating all rules as non-cumulative is exempt from this ruling
- The multiple modifiers rule only applies when the modifiers come from different sources
- In "Whilst the power is in effect" powers, "the power" does not refer to that manifestation of the power, but the power in and of itself (granted, those who insist that these powers definitely stack make the reversed assumption)
- Other powers that don't have this wording are still treated as if they do

I'm sorry but this is your assumption on what some people are saying. Does not appear to be the general consensus. Intentionally misleading? 

Well they claim they have multiple modifiers and then use page 2 to stack them. They only have multiple modifiers if psychic powers resolve cumulatively. Hence they assume psychic powers stack as part of their argument on why psychic powers stack had you read the thread you'd have already known this.

Of course it is intentionally misleading the only reason you would remind the reader 3 times that different powers stacked was if you didn't want the same power to make stack or you want people to believe the same power didn't stack. Why else specifically call out different powers every single time you talk about powers stacking?

The no stacking side has made a number of assumptions, including: 
- Psychic powers are special rules not everyone on tge stacking side believes this and those that do have posted rules that lead them to this belief which means it is not an assumption.
- Different powers stacking means multiple iterations of the same power don't rather than some powers are cumulative and some aren't no one has said this. We have said that this illuatrates that the writer did not believe the same power stacks with itself as default
- Everything is inherently non-cumulative despite only the special rules section stating this to be the case we are assuming nothing unless told otherwise
- Every other rule that would be affected by treating all rules as non-cumulative is exempt from this ruling no assumptions made some rules tell you how to resolve them cumulatively and some don't
- The multiple modifiers rule only applies when the modifiers come from different sources no one has said this all they've said is that multiple modifiers only applies if you have multiple modifiers...
- In "Whilst the power is in effect" powers, "the power" does not refer to that manifestation of the power, but the power in and of itself (granted, those who insist that these powers definitely stack make the reversed assumption) you mean like everyone dies for every other instance where similar wording in used (Waagh banners for example)
- Other powers that don't have this wording are still treated as if they do [b] or more accurately they are still treated like any other power. Whilst it is undeniable that powers with that wording don't stack other powers still lack permission to stack despite your side wanting them to.

Fling It Now has it right.

NOpe, Fling is ignoring rules, and making an assumption that , despite being explicitly told otherwise and to stop lying, the no-stack side believes the designers are intentionally misleading.

I'll just go with 4+1+1 = 6, seems easiest that way.

Stratos wrote:
Dis thread tho. Occam's razor that gak least assumptions = most likely to be right and atm i call that to the stacking side because it seems to only make one assumption where as the other seems to make 2-3.

Wouldn't Occam go,

The no stacking side can quote man rules from the psychic power section, that support powers not stacking.
The stacking side can't. They also throw the red herring of "It's just a +1 modifier" to take focus away from what the power in question does.

so we can go with RAW, they don't stack, or opinions and misleading arguments to make them stack.

If you can't find any rules in the psychic section to support your case, then you have no case.

Occam says no to stacking.

They can quote rules from the psychic powers section to support different rules stacking, I've yet to see one that support same powers not stacking.

As far as rules quotes, how's this?
"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."

"If the psychic test is pass, all models in the unit (including Independent Character) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase."

"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."

If the unit does not gain +2 strength for having both Hammerhands cast on it, both the resolving psychic powers and multiple modifiers rules are being broken.
I have clear permission here to resolve the second Hammerhand and apply the modifier, now until someone can cite me a single rule that provides denial I'm going to tell every Grey Knight player I meet that they can stack Hammerhand to their heart's content.

I say it has nothing to do with the affect of psychic powers being a rule or not, the hangup for me is in the defining sentence of 'different powers'.

RAW that means they cannot stack to me.

But unlike some of the more bitter and unyielding people on here that need to be right, I can see how there could be a case for both sides in this arguement. It is a shame we have ANY side on this one that says 'I am RAW, you are HYWPI because I am awesome'. Some people just can't swallow pride.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
NOpe, Fling is ignoring rules, and making an assumption that , despite being explicitly told otherwise and to stop lying, the no-stack side believes the designers are intentionally misleading.

I'll just go with 4+1+1 = 6, seems easiest that way.

Oh dear Nos that's a pretty embarrassing post. You tell me to stop lying despite having never done so. Whilst repeatedly lying in the very post. We know that your argument is based on the assumption that the design team is intentionally misleading the reader as I've proven.

We know I'm not ignoring any rules as you can't point to one I'm ignoring. So that is yet another lie.

Then the bizarre lie at the end about the no stacking side requiring you to assume the writers are misleading the reader when we've made no such assumption and our argument as you well know isn't based on that unlike your argument. So please accept the truth that your side requires the writers to be intentionally misleading the reader. If you fail to acknowledge that fact (or prove it false) then I'll take that as you conceding.

Unfortunately, a statement that different powers stack says absolutely *nothing* about same powers. It is a logical fallacy - one commmited by the no stack side - to claim that this means that same powers do NOT stack.

We can do without the insults, accusations, name calling etc etc.

Thanks.

Edit: had refuted Flings post - again - but decided that this is just a waste of time for most posters

4+1+1 = 6. Page 2.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They can quote rules from the psychic powers section to support different rules stacking, I've yet to see one that support same powers not stacking.

As far as rules quotes, how's this?
"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."

"If the psychic test is pass, all models in the unit (including Independent Character) have +1 Strength until the end of the assault phase."

"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."

Why are you afraid to finish the first quote?

"unless otherwise stated the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" It's right there as part of resolving the power. Under psychic powers we are specifically given permission for only different powers to stack. If the different powers rule is just a reminder as some claim, then it can only be reminding of of the special rule "unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative" isn't it odd that the stacking side, keeps being called a reminder while not actually showing what it's reminding us of?

So you can resolve the power, you just have no permission for it to be cumulative. Does it's entry say it's cumulative?

then you totally ignore the first paragraph of modifiers "certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a models characteristics.
If you don't have a modifier, you can't have multiple modifiers. qed.

So you're wrong from the start of resolving and get more wrong.

if the psychic powers are not special rules, then why when you read through special rules it mentions psychic powers and when you read through psychic powers, maledictions and blessings say they grant special rules? If it's just an assumption, than it is definitely an assumption backed by many rules. While saying "but there not" is just an opinion.

whenever a chreature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules it is represented by a special rule.
we're talking about special rules early because many of the other rules in this tome (particularly those for weapons and for troop types) are tied into the special rules given here.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, waddles like a duck, and calls itself a duck, then it must be a duck. and it 100% RAW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Unfortunately, a statement that different powers stack says absolutely *nothing* about same powers. It is a logical fallacy - one commmited by the no stack side - to claim that this means that same powers do NOT stack.

A → A is also a logical fallacy. I do understand basic logic but the rules writers clearly don't and I see no reason to assume that they require the reader to understand it. You're also lying as you know we have not stated that the fact that they've said different powers stack logically means that the same powers don't. However normal English usage certainly implies that particularly when it is repeated 3 times and used in every single instance where they talk about psychic powers stacking.

Now we can prove that different powers stack and that multiple modifiers stack using the normal mathematical process. Can you prove that you have permission to stack the same power with out assuming that the same power is resolved cumulatively with itself? Got any rules to support page 2 being relevant?

Psychic powers that are the same do not stack.

There is no permission for them to do so under psychic powers.

Psychic powers that are different but affect the same stat do stack.

As there is permission for them to do so under psychic powers.

General rules do not trump specific rules, the psychic power section is specific about what can stack, the general rule for how to apply things that are allowed to stack on p.2 has no bearing if the modifiers are not allowed to stack.

You may resolve your power as normal, it just results in a modifier that may not cumulatively add(or subtract) from the stat in question.

In a permissive rules set if there is no permission for same powers to stack, the omission of what that means is that there is no permission for them to stack. If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.

blaktoof wrote:
If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.

They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.

They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.

Permissive rule set remember? You need to find it stated plainly that same powers stack.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.

They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.

p.68 BRB

Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are
always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take
characteristics above 10 or below l.

There is permission for different powers to stack.

There is no permission for same powers to stack.

I did not make up the rulebook.

If the blessing you are using specifically states that it is cumulative as per the BRB? No? then its not.

I appreciate your pointless and unfounded comments on what I have and have not invented, to try and prove my point, but I do not have a personal point. I am merely stating what the rules RAW are.

there are some powers that specifically state they stack with themselves, and then there are those that do not.

As per the RAW on p.68, if they do not otherwise state that they stack, they do not stack.

again these are not things I invented, or made up. They are plainly written in the BRB.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If they have stated that same powers do not stack, it further goes on past the fact that there is 0 permission for them to stack, in saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative" so no, you cannot stack the same psychic power.

They've never, ever, stated - plainly or ortherwise - that same powers do not stack. You've invented this idea to prove your point, but it's not supported by any actual rules.

p.68 BRB

Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are
always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take
characteristics above 10 or below l.

There is permission for different powers to stack.

There is no permission for same powers to stack.

I did not make up the rulebook.

If the blessing you are using specifically states that it is cumulative as per the BRB? No? then its not.

I appreciate your pointless and unfounded comments on what I have and have not invented, to try and prove my point, but I do not have a personal point. I am merely stating what the rules RAW are.

there are some powers that specifically state they stack with themselves, and then there are those that do not.

As per the RAW on p.68, if they do not otherwise state that they stack, they do not stack.

again these are not things I invented, or made up. They are plainly written in the BRB.

Can you quote where it is, and I'll quote you, "saying plainly that "same powers are not cumulative""? Because it's not in the rules quote you provided.

Oh, you're making an assumption? Gotcha. So where is the denial to apply page 2 Multiple Modifiers? I'm sure you just forgot to cite it, like you forgot to support your statement with an actual rule.

It's not plainly stated - you're making an inference based on a lack of statement. That's what you invented - the fact that it's plainly stated.

You have permission for different powers to stack.

You do not have permission for any other type of psychic power to stack.


I did not invent that, you are actually trolling and making personal attacks by claiming things I am doing that are untrue.

Reported.

can you show me where it says you have permission for the same psychic power to stack?

blaktoof wrote:
You have permission for different powers to stack.

You do not have permission for any other type of psychic power to stack.


I did not invent that, you are actually trolling and making personal attacks by claiming things I am doing that are untrue.

You invented that it's stated plainly. I can tell because you again refused to cite where it's stated plainly that same powers do not stack.
It isn't stated plainly - I challenge you to prove that it is. Find one rule - anywhere in the rulebook - that plainly states same powers do not stack.
That's what you need to find to show that you did not invent anything. You stated it as fact that the rulebook "plainly" states same powers do not stack.
That's an absolute fabrication.

can you show me where it says you have permission for the same psychic power to stack?

Do the powers apply modifiers?
Page 2, Multiple Modifiers.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
You have permission for different powers to stack.

You do not have permission for any other type of psychic power to stack.


I did not invent that, you are actually trolling and making personal attacks by claiming things I am doing that are untrue.

You invented that it's stated plainly. I can tell because you again refused to cite where it's stated plainly that same powers do not stack.
It isn't stated plainly - I challenge you to prove that it is. Find one rule - anywhere in the rulebook - that plainly states same powers do not stack.
That's what you need to find to show that you did not invent anything. You stated it as fact that the rulebook "plainly" states same powers do not stack.
That's an absolute fabrication.

can you show me where it says you have permission for the same psychic power to stack?

Do the powers apply modifiers?
Page 2, Multiple Modifiers.

You do realize your inferring that because there is nothing saying you do not have permission for the same power to stack that they do stack, and using that rule to invent that somewhere it gives you permission for the same powers to stack.

There is no where in the BRB that says "same psychic powers stack"

There is somewhere in the BRB that says "Different psychic powers stack"

from this you invent the rule that "same powers stack" because it doesn't say they cant. Which of course ignores the idea of "permissive rules set' which many people believe the game exists in.

Then you support it with the very general rule with how to apply modifiers that are cumulative.

However you have done this by completely making up a rule, then claiming the method for applying things that -are- cumulative- is the basis that all modifiers are cumulative. Which is actually a second made up rule.

It also doesn't say i cant spend 1850 points on a hammer and smash my opponents models off the table, then say they lost because they have no models on the table at the end of their turn, because things that it doesn't say are not rules.

blaktoof wrote:
You do realize your inferring that because there is nothing saying you do not have permission for the same power to stack that they do stack, and using that rule to invent that somewhere it gives you permission for the same powers to stack.

No, I'm not.
I have permission to resolve both powers. Correct?
Part of resolving the power is applying the text of the power. Correct?
What does the text of the power require me to do? Add 1 to a model's S? How do I do that? I look at Modifiers! Oh - he already has a Modifier. Let's look at Multiple Modifiers!
Cite where I've invented a rule.

However you have done this by completely making up a rule, then claiming the method for applying things that -are- cumulative- is the basis that all modifiers are cumulative. Which is actually a second made up rule.

Yeahno.

Have you found the rule that's plainly stated yet? I'm surprised it's taking you so long - perhaps you were overzealous in your summation? Would you like to retract the fact that it's plainly stated?

Im sorry that you are completely wrong and unable to accept it.

your point will be considered conceded until you can find permission for -same- psychic powers to be cumulative, when only -different- psychic powers being cumulative have been given permission within the permissive rules set of 40k.

Until then I refer you to my above post which clearly shows you have completely invented two rules to make psychic powers that are the same stack.

blaktoof wrote:
Im sorry that you are completely wrong and unable to accept it.

your point will be considered conceded until you can find permission for -same- psychic powers to be cumulative, when only -different- psychic powers being cumulative have been given permission within the permissive rules set of 40k.

Until then I refer you to my above post which clearly shows you have completely invented two rules to make psychic powers that are the same stack.

So still no citation of rules to support your "plainly stated" statement, and no retraction of same?
Not even going to address how I supported my rules argument with examples?

You can consider my point whatever you want, but I will not concede to bullying and lies.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
NOpe, Fling is ignoring rules, and making an assumption that , despite being explicitly told otherwise and to stop lying, the no-stack side believes the designers are intentionally misleading.

I'll just go with 4+1+1 = 6, seems easiest that way.

The brb explicitly states different powers don't stack so the rules for a specific power would have to say otherwise for example such as Enfeeble which does not. I find nothing in the rules related to this misleading.

rigeld2 wrote:
I have permission to resolve both powers. Correct?

This is correct, you have permission to cast hammer hand from an IC onto a unit he is joined to. you also have permission to cast Hammerhand from the unit itself. I have not found any denial of this permission.

Part of resolving the power is applying the text of the power. Correct?

Of course. otherwise Psychic powers would be useless.

What does the text of the power require me to do? Add 1 to a model's S?

Correct, Hammerhand adds +1 to the Str of all models in a particular unit.

How do I do that? I look at Modifiers! Oh - he already has a Modifier. Let's look at Multiple Modifiers!

Again this is correct. you have two +1 modifiers after you cast hammerhand twice on a single unit.

Cite where I've invented a rule.

You have not invented a rule as far as I can tell. There are no rules quotes I can find to disprove your statement. Ergo they must be correct.