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.

I see no proof in HJ's post. His example ignores RAW, where we are given permission in a permissive rule set for different Psychic Powers to be be cumulative, which occurs after we are told benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.

If you want to prove your case, prove that Hammerhand =/= Hammerhand. Prove that Different = Same.

As you cannot prove a negative, your case falls apart. I've accepted Nos's concession due to him never actually citing any rules to support his claims, I accept your concession due to the same.

SJ

Disregarding the rhetoric, FlingitNow is correct. Hammerhand doesn't have the ambiguous "whilst the power is in effect" wording which is a whole other argument in itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.

Please prove this using relevant rules quotations.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Disregarding the rhetoric, FlingitNow is correct. Hammerhand doesn't have the ambiguous "whilst the power is in effect" wording which is a whole other argument in itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.

Please prove this using relevant rules quotations.

Already did, as seen earlier in this thread as well as in every version of this thread that has appeared previously. In this thread, you will see my post detailing the logical progression on determining cumulative versus non-cumulative modifiers as defined by RAW.

SJ

Please direct me to this post that provides rules denying permission to apply modifiers cumulatively.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Please direct me to this post that provides rules denying permission to apply modifiers cumulatively.

That would pg. 2 of this thread, my first post, regarding Pg. 2 of BRB. Took like 5 seconds to locate.

SJ

The one that says because there are no examples in the multiple modifiers section for multiple modifiers from the same source we can't use the rule then goes on to make the assertion that psychic powers are special rules?

Allow me to refute this:
- Not having an example does not mean we can't use a rule, we don't have Tyranid examples in the shooting section of the book, yet Tyranids can still use them.

- Psyker is a special rule, psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers. This is why they are listed under the "Psychic Powers" section in books, not the "Special Rules" section. In a similar vein, unit types are unit types, wargear are wargear, characteristics are characteristics, etc.

 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

Well written. Rules clearly state that only different blessings, maledictions and whatnot stack. Why is that simple rule ignored and loopholes are searched for?

I would immediately quit the game if my opponent tried to stack e.g. Protect.

They do not, in fact, state that only different powers are cumulative.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
They do not, in fact, state that only different powers are cumulative.

They do however only state that different powers are cumulative...

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The one that says because there are no examples in the multiple modifiers section for multiple modifiers from the same source we can't use the rule then goes on to make the assertion that psychic powers are special rules?

Allow me to refute this:
- Not having an example does not mean we can't use a rule, we don't have Tyranid examples in the shooting section of the book, yet Tyranids can still use them.

- Psyker is a special rule, psychic powers are not special rules, they are psychic powers. This is why they are listed under the "Psychic Powers" section in books, not the "Special Rules" section. In a similar vein, unit types are unit types, wargear are wargear, characteristics are characteristics, etc.

Pg. 2 does not contain language stating all modifiers are cumulative. My post pointed out that pg. 2 only covers how to apply different modifiers, not how to apply multiples of the same modifier. You need to cite a specific example in order to refute that statement.

As to psychic powers and special rules, every psychic power that bends or breaks the basic rules of the game are in fact Special Rules per pg. 32 of the BRB. Not all psychic powers generate special rules, but all powers that do grant rules that change how the basic rules are applied will fall under Special Rules. Again, you need to cite language in the BRB that states otherwise in order to refute that statement.

Let me give you an example:

Smite generates no special rules, it is simply a Psychic Shooting Attack with a weapon profile. No rules are bent or broken.

Hammerhand grants a +1 to Str for the unit (a special rule as noted on pg. 32, which specially points out Strenght modifiers as Special Rules) as well as the ability to apply said bonus before multiplication (breaks the basic rules on pg. 2).

Hammerhand generates Special Rules, which per pg. 32 informs us that the bonus from Hammerhand is not cumulative. Please cite an actual rule that refutes this statement.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I see no proof in HJ's post.

Then you didn't read/understand it.

His example ignores RAW,

They really don't. I have not seen anything cited that disproves his examples.

where we are given permission in a permissive rule set for different Psychic Powers to be be cumulative

Correct, but this does not say that the same psychic power is not cumulative.

which occurs after we are told benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative.

This is the basis for your argument? This is 100% incorrect. I challenge you to find where it says that "benefits from multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative." because I can not find that anywhere in my BRB that says that Psychic powers are not cumulative.

Per RAW, Hammerhand = Hammerhand, and casting 5 Hammerhands on the same unit will never net more than single +1 to Str modifier due to the permissive rule set denying permission for those 5 castings to be cumulative.

There is no denial of permission, Cite it and prove me wrong. (You won't be able to because this restriction does not exist).

If you want to prove your case, prove that Hammerhand =/= Hammerhand. Prove that Different = Same.

Your false premise leads to this false conclusion.

As you cannot prove a negative, your case falls apart. I've accepted Nos's concession due to him never actually citing any rules to support his claims, I accept your concession due to the same.

SJ

You are the one with the false premise.

We have permission to cast hammerhand on a unit. That unit gets a +1 modifier.

We have permission once that first casting is resolved to cast Hammerhand again from a different psyker onto that same unit. once that second Hammerhand is resolved that unit gets a +1 Str. We look up what to do when we have multiple modifiers on page 2, and we see that 4+1+1= 6, just like regular math.

You are the one that needs to find a restriction, since you can not you must concede that these powers will stack because of the rules I have provided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
They do however only state that different powers are cumulative...

Yes they state that different powers are cumulative. This does not mean that the same power is not cumulative.
Because P.2 tells us that Hammerhand is cumulative by virtue of saying that 4+1+1=6

Multiple modifiers allows stacking. Nothing restricts stacking to different powers only

Concession accepted. No citation from you to support your claim, just the continued denial of my argument based solely on your opinion alone.

SJ

Yes they state that different powers are cumulative. This does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. !

No RaW it doesn't you're correct that statement in itself does not state that the same power doesn't stack. That is true but the only rason to single out different powers EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about powers stacking means either the same power doesn't stack or you want the reader to believe the same powers don't stack. So again with the Design team deliberately trying to mislead us claim...

Because P.2 tells us that Hammerhand is cumulative by virtue of saying that 4+1+1=6 

Multiple modifiers allows stacking. Nothing restricts stacking to different powers only

Multiple modifiers allows stacking of multiple modifiers. You have to prove you have permission to have multiple modifiers from the same psychic power. I know we have permission to cumulate different powers but where is your permission for the same power?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Concession accepted. No citation from you to support your claim, just the continued denial of my argument based solely on your opinion alone.

SJ

You are kidding right? I will give specific quotes since you say I do not have rules support, once you see these quotes you will be proven wrong.

The following quotes are from Page 67:

"Once a Psyker states which psychic power he is going to attempt to manifest, follow this sequence:"

"l. Expend Warp Charge Reduce the Psyker's Warp Charge.
2. Declare Target If the psychic power requires a target, choose it now.
3. Take Psychic Test The Psyker must now take a Psychic test. If the test is failed, the psychic power fails. If a double I or double 6 is rolled, the Psyker suffers Perils of the Warp, which is resolved immediately.
4. Deny the Witch If the Psychic test was passed and the target was an enemy, it now gets a chance to Deny the Witch and nullify the power. If the power is nullified, the attempt fails and nothing further happens.
5. Resolve Psychic Power Assuming that the Psychic test was passed and the power was not nullified by ^ Deny the Witch roll, it is now resolved"

There is permission for a single psyker to cast Hammerhand on a unit.

There contains permission for a different Psyker to also cast Hammerhand on the same target unit. It has to be a different Psyker because of this restriction: "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more"than once each turn -even if the manifestation attempt is not successful"

Once we resolve the first hammerhand we can cast the second one, which also needs to be resolved.

Resolving a Psychic power is as such:

page 68 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. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative.

Hammerhand creates a modifier, if it is cast twice, which I have proven it can be cast twice on a single unit, then it creates multiple modifiers on a single unit. we look at page 2 and see that 4+1+1=6.

Proven.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Yes they state that different powers are cumulative. This does not mean that the same power is not cumulative. !

No RaW it doesn't you're correct that statement in itself does not state that the same power doesn't stack. That is true but the only rason to single out different powers EVERY SINGLE TIME you talk about powers stacking means either the same power doesn't stack or you want the reader to believe the same powers don't stack. So again with the Design team deliberately trying to mislead us claim...

The Design team was placing a reminder within the rules, nothing more.

Multiple modifiers allows stacking of multiple modifiers. You have to prove you have permission to have multiple modifiers from the same psychic power. I know we have permission to cumulate different powers but where is your permission for the same power?

As noted above. permission for the same power to be cast and resolved twice on the same unit.

The Design team was placing a reminder within the rules, nothing more.

It is a partial reminder that is intentionally misleading taken in context. Find another example anywhere in the rules where they do this and you'd have a point.

As noted above. permission for the same power to be cast and resolved twice on the same unit.

Permission to cast a power twice is not permission to resolve it cumulatively. Please quote that. Just as getting stealth from 2 different sources doesn't give you stealth x 2.

resolution of the power doesn't include permission to make it cumulative.

You can resolve the power by saying the unit now has x power affecting it. Whilst X power is in effect the unit has +1 to Y. The requirement for the power to be resolved isn't the modification of the stat, but the power being on the unit. This is evident in that many powers have no affect on statistics of units and do other things, like grant overwatch at full BS, or deny overwatch, or what not. The end effect, the resolution of the power is the power being on the unit, not the singular stat effect. So yes you have permission to have multiple hammerhands resolved on a unit, but no you do not have permission for them to be cumulative.

Further going past this lack of any RAW permission for them to be cumulative, you have the RAW that different powers are cumulative. When we see rules in the rulebook we assume they are in the rulebook because they give permission for that rule to take affect.

So we have permission for different powers, and none given for the same powers to stack in general.

Furthermore within the grey knights codex if we want to single out hammerhand, we have the power "might of the titans" which states that it will stack with the +1 strength for hammerhand. This shows RAI that even in 5th hammerhand probably did not stack with itself, as it had to be spelled out that a different power would actually stack with it. As this has not been faqed to change the wording it still stands as RAI in the current edition.

There is no general permission to then make the multiple castings of the same power cumulative. You are not breaking any rules by not letting them be cumulative as the rules on p.2 only tell you want to do for modifiers which are allowed to be cumulative.

As no one has been given permission for the power to be cumulative, within a permissive rules set its not cumulative.

No one has shown that there is permission under blessings/maledictions or psychic powers for the same power to be cumulative. Simply citing how you apply multiple modifers -WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO BE CUMULATIVE FROM THEIR SPECIFIC SOURCES- is not the basis for making something cumulative.

Furthermore as a more extreme statement from a strictly RAW standpoint under modifiers it states "certain pieces of Wargear or Special Rules may modify some models characteristics" psychic powers are neither of those, unless somehow they are special rules and everyone is wrong about that- which means you cannot make them cumulative as per the rules for special rules, but obviously that is not the RAW case[hey actually no where does it say psychic powers are not special rules so maybe they are if nowhere it says psychic powers are not cumulative..lol...] Potentially this means that you have to use the rules contained within the psychic power and the psychic power rules section themselves to apply your modifiers, which according to the rules under blessings/maledictions are allowed to be cumulative if they are different, and under the rules for specific powers it tells you how to modify the models statistics or abilities, which means you do not need the rules on p.2 to actually modify the stats, this would also RAW make powers that improve armor saves improve them, rather than worsen them as they would if you applied the modifiers RAW on p.2.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Why is everyone so insistent on Hammerhand being the example power? Myself and I'm sure several others do not have a copy of this power to reference and this is a general question not specific to a particular power. !

I can help here. It is being used because it is neither a malediction nor a blessing and lacks the "whilst this power is in effect" that basically all 6th Ed powers have. It is because they know they don't have a leg to stand on in relation to 6th Ed powers so are trying to muddy the water with a sloppily worded 5th Ed power and use this to imply that all powers stack as default. Essentially it is because they know they are wrong RaW and RaI but so desperately need to win the argument they are using an out of date power because it lacks the clarity of how it interacts with 6th Ed like the 6th Ed powers.

OK lets take a step away from Hammerhand for a moment.

C: Eldar, page 70.

Horrify is a malediction that targets a single enemy unit within 18". All models in the target unit suffer a -3 modifier to Leadership.


I have a Seer Council. There is a unit of Necron Warriors 12" away with an attached Cryptek.
Warlock 1 attempts to cast Horrify.
Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Warlock 1 reduces his Warp Charges from 1 to 0.
Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council.
Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Warlock must take a psychic test. As the Warlock is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 3, meaning against Ld 8, the Warlock passes (and nearly suffer PotW).
Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 1 meaning they failed.
Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. As above the Warriors suffer -3 to their Leadership.

Warlock 2 also attempts to cast Horrify.
Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Warlock 2 reduces his Warp Charges from 1 to 0.
Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council.
Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Warlock must take a psychic test. As the Warlock is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 7, meaning against Ld 8, the Warlock passes.
Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 5 meaning they failed.
Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. As above the Warriors suffer -3 to their Leadership.

Now my question is why do you not let me resolve the second casting of Horrify, causing the Warriors to be at -6 Leadership. Please cite an actual rule that forbids me from resolving the power.

Now in the Shooting phase, the Farseer in the Council decides to cast Mind War (Focussed Witchfire).
Step 1. Expend Warp Charge - Farseer reduces his Warp Charges from 3 to 1.
Step 2. Declare Target - I declare the unit of Necron Warriors 12" away from my Seer Council, specifically the Cryptek.
Step 3. Take Psychic Test - The Farseer must take a psychic test. As the Farseer is an inanimate object I roll 2D6 and compare the result to the Warlocks Leadership score. I roll a 2, meaning against Ld 10, the Farseer passes. The Farseer also suffers PotW but negates it with his last Warp Charge. More importantly, since I rolled less than 5, I get to target my choice of model (the Cryptek).
Step 4. Deny the Witch - The Necrons now have a chance to shrug off the power by rolling a D6. They roll a 3 meaning they failed.
Step 5. Resolve Psychic Power - Since the Psychic test was passed, and the Warriors failed their DtW roll, I resolve the power according to its entry. The Cryptek and Farseer both roll a D6 and add their Leadership. Since the Cryptek is at -6 (-3 and -3), and the Farseer is at Leadership 10, The Cryptek is reduced to BS 1, WS 1 and takes 1 to 9 wounds (depending on the rolls) with no armour or cover saves.

HJ, the reason why you only get a net of -3 to Ld from 2 or more castings of Horrify is because Horrify does not contain language informing us multiple casting are cumulative. As such, a unit can never be more Horrified than they were the first time they were Horrified. We know this because we are informed in the BRB that the effects of different Maledictions are cumulative, while the effects of multiple casting of the same Malediction have no such permission to be cumulative unless otherwise noted. That is the reason why after resolving the second power, the final result did not change from -3 to -6.

SJ

I have permission to cast Horrify, which includes resolving the power. Correct?
I have permission to cast Horrify a second time (from a different model), which includes resolving the power. Correct?

So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?

Are wounds caused by multiple Vector Strikes cumulative? Or if I have 2+ FMCs that Vector Strike a single unit do I only get D3+1 hits? After all, special rules are not cumulative.

So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?

Why would we need one? No one has said you can't resolve the second casting. Just without permission you can't resolve it cumulatively. Show permission to resolve cumulatively and we'll all accept that. Page and paragraph is enough.

 FlingitNow wrote:

So where is the rule disallowing the second resolution?

Why would we need one? No one has said you can't resolve the second casting. Just without permission you can't resolve it cumulatively. Show permission to resolve cumulatively and we'll all accept that. Page and paragraph is enough.

I have permission to resolve the first power resulting in a -3 Leadership. I have permission to resolve the second casting, resulting an another -3 Ld. -3 Ld + -3 Ld = -6 Ld.

I have permission to resolve the first power resulting in a -3 Leadership. I have permission to resolve the second casting, resulting an another -3 Ld. -3 Ld + -3 Ld = -6 Ld.

Underlined is the part you have yet to prove.

I resolve the power in accordance to its instructions. Per the instructions of the power, the target unit suffers a -3 Ld.

True but is that a different -3 to the one already on the unit from Horrify? If you resolve powers concurrently then no, if you resolve them cumulatively then yes. Without permission to resolve the power cumulatively you can't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
True but is that a different -3 to the one already on the unit from Horrify? If you resolve powers concurrently then no, if you resolve them cumulatively then yes. Without permission to resolve the power cumulatively you can't.

Page 67 gives permission to resolve the power in accordance to its instructions.

Page 2 gives the permission to be cumulative.

Is there anything that denies them from being cumulative, given I have just proven that we are given permission to resolve them cumulatively.

Page 2 talks about multiple different modifiers so we both know that isn't your proof for resolving powers cumulatively therefore it must be on page 67. But I just can't see where on page 67 it says resolve powers cumulatively with themselves? You made this claim please quote the part of page 67 that says a power is resolved cumulatively with itself or that multiple instances of the same power create different modifiers. If you can not post that concede and retract your statement.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 talks about multiple different modifiers so we both know that isn't your proof for resolving powers cumulatively therefore it must be on page 67. But I just can't see where on page 67 it says resolve powers cumulatively with themselves? You made this claim please quote the part of page 67 that says a power is resolved cumulatively with itself or that multiple instances of the same power create different modifiers. If you can not post that concede and retract your statement.

Where on page 2 does it say "different modifiers"?

You still have not shown a rule forbidding me from resolving the power according to instructions in its entries, which in the case of Horrify includes penalising the target unit with -3 Ld.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Page 2 talks about multiple different modifiers so we both know that isn't your proof for resolving powers cumulatively therefore it must be on page 67. But I just can't see where on page 67 it says resolve powers cumulatively with themselves? You made this claim please quote the part of page 67 that says a power is resolved cumulatively with itself or that multiple instances of the same power create different modifiers. If you can not post that concede and retract your statement.

Where on page 2 does it say "different modifiers"?

You still have not shown a rule forbidding me from resolving the power according to instructions in its entries, which in the case of Horrify includes penalising the target unit with -3 Ld.

HJ is correct. Until you come up with a rule forbidding the resolution of powers according to their instructions in their entry your points are moot.

If you can't cite anything that Forbids the resolution of the same power cast by a different Psyker then you must concede that powers can stack.

Multiple Modifiers by definition requires more than 1 modifier. Why are you saying it doesn't?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Multiple Modifiers by definition requires more than 1 modifier. Why are you saying it doesn't?

Where did I say this?