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.

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?

Find a solution to the following:

4+1+1=?

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?

Find a solution to the following:

4+1+1=?

Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?

The permission is implied in the "solution," I.E. adding +1. You "settle or find the solution to" a casting of Hammerhand by adding +1 to your current Strength, to a maximum of 10, with no restrictions.

Edit: Hell, here's my post with the definition of resolve instead of the word:

There is no 'criteria involved in making the decision' - the decision is made for me by the rules. I have permission to resolve 'settle or find a solution to' the power, and resolving 'settling or finding the solution to' the power adds +1 to my strength, to a maximum of 10, without any restrictions.

You cast enfeeble on a vehicle. Enfeeble reduces the targets T by 1 and makes it as if the model was in difficult terrain. The model suffers no negative to toughness . Did the power resolve ?

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


it means "to settle or find a solution to."

I fail to see how that damages my argument.

You have permission to cast power , you have permission to "settle or find a solution to"
Where is the permission for them to act cumulatively ?

Find a solution to the following:

4+1+1=?

Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

a + sign is the mathematical equivalent of accumulation - they must be cumulative for that statement to be parsed.

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.

Anything taking that permission away?

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?

Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?

Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place

The power states it is applicable - there's your permission to add +1 to your current strength.

Now you have to revoke that permission.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?

Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place

The power states it is applicable - there's your permission to add +1 to your current strength.

Now you have to revoke that permission.

If the power stated it was applicable these threads wouldn't exists.

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?

Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place

Applicable? Are we not told to resolve the power?
So we have permission to apply a +1 modifier.
Where's the restriction there?

Is there a restriction for 2 Psykers casting the same power?
There are a whole host of permissions, and not a single restriction.

What restriction is there? Or what lack of permission?

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Assuming the "+'s are permission for things to be cumulative , its 6

Does the Hammerhand rule use the mathematical symbol "+"?

yep

Well a "+" is absolutely cumulative. It's the nature of the beast.
So you're told to resolve the power with a cumulative modifier.
Permission granted to resolve and add.
Anything taking that permission away?

Yep permissive ruleset . you have to show it to be applicable in order to be in your equation in the first place

The power states it is applicable - there's your permission to add +1 to your current strength.

Now you have to revoke that permission.

If the power stated it was applicable these threads wouldn't exists.

What does the power state?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What does the power state?

Not sure , i don't have access to the entire power description just the bits people post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
Applicable? Are we not told to resolve the power?
So we have permission to apply a +1 modifier.
Where's the restriction there?

Is there a restriction for 2 Psykers casting the same power?
There are a whole host of permissions, and not a single restriction.

What restriction is there? Or what lack of permission?

Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What does the power state?

Not sure , i don't have access to the entire power description just the bits people post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:
Applicable? Are we not told to resolve the power?
So we have permission to apply a +1 modifier.
Where's the restriction there?

Is there a restriction for 2 Psykers casting the same power?
There are a whole host of permissions, and not a single restriction.

What restriction is there? Or what lack of permission?

Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

Enfeeble resolves, the vehicle loses d3 toughness (which does not affect it in the slightest) but is now in difficult terrain (which most certainly does).

kambien wrote:
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.

So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.

All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.

So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.

All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?

Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.

you guys are arguing senselessly at this point like i said i checked with the tournament organizer and the way that that are running it at a very large and well known tournament is that it stacks coming from multiple sources, whether you agree with it or not thats how it is being played

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.

So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.

All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?

Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.

Yes, you are - if you have not reached the maximum strength value of 10, then you can stack them all you want, because there is no restriction preventing the resolution of the power.

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.

So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.

All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?

Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.

So no restriction then? None at all?

And it uses a stacking symbol. One that is by it's very nature cumulative (+).

Basic addition, basic maths, is not stacking/cumulative?

All the permissions are there:
Permission to resolve,
Permission to have more than one (multiple) modifiers,
A modifier that is cumulative (addition)

Yes there is permission.
No there isn't a single restriction.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, you are - if you have not reached the maximum strength value of 10, then you can stack them all you want, because there is no restriction preventing the resolution of the power.

You at no time have found the permission to stack the same power to the strength score of 10. Its a permissive rule set . You need permission to do such things.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
Being applicable and resolving are two completely different things
lets revisit the enfeeble/vehicle example. I'll assume you remember it . Are you saying the power does not resolve because it lacks toughness ? Or does the enfeeble resolve but just isn't applicable because of the lack of toughness ?

That's an entirely different argument that actually has no bearing on the topic at hand.

So if the first +1 is applicable, why is a second or third not?
Having more than one modifier is absolutely allowed. There's even a rule on the subject.

All the permissions are in place. What the restriction preventing the second application?

Because you are not given permission to stack the same powers.

So no restriction then? None at all?

And it uses a stacking symbol. One that is by it's very nature cumulative (+).

Basic addition, basic maths, is not stacking/cumulative?

All the permissions are there:
Permission to resolve,
Permission to have more than one (multiple) modifiers,
A modifier that is cumulative (addition)

Yes there is permission.
No there isn't a single restriction.

are you saying permissive rule set doesn't restrict permissions ? You still lack permission to stack the same power . At no point has anything you shown dispute that

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, you are - if you have not reached the maximum strength value of 10, then you can stack them all you want, because there is no restriction preventing the resolution of the power.

You at no time have found the permission to stack the same power to the strength score of 10. Its a permissive rule set . You need permission to do such things.

The power itself uses a + sign, indicating mathematical accumulation. There is no indication that we are to take this symbol (the +) as anything other than strict mathematical addition. That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

The only restriction is that there is a maximum strength value of 10.

kambien wrote:
are you saying permissive rule set doesn't restrict permissions ? You still lack permission to stack the same power . At no point has anything you shown dispute that

I'm not sure you fully understand the nature of a permissive ruleset.

You can't do anything without permission.
Once permission is granted, you need a restriction to remove said permission.

Permission is granted.
You can resolve the power,
The same power can be cast from different sources,
The power can apply a modifier,
More than one modifier can be applied,
A stacking/cumulative symbol is used in the description of the Modifer being used.

Go through the process, at every step there is something granting permission.
Show where it isn't.
Or show a restriction.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The power itself uses a + sign, indicating mathematical accumulation.

I agree

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There is no indication that we are to take this symbol (the +) as anything other than strict mathematical addition.

i agree

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

I disagree , you get to do it once

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The only restriction is that there is a maximum strength value of 10.

Its not the only restriction . You still haven't shown permission for the same powers to be added together

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

I disagree , you get to do it once

Why do you disagree? You can't just 'disagree' with mathematical truth and then not provide an explanation.

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

I disagree , you get to do it once

The only way you can disagree is you believe 4+1+1=5
The game tells you to use maths, and addition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

I disagree , you get to do it once

Why do you disagree? You can't just 'disagree' with mathematical truth and then not provide an explanation.

because "+" is not a infinity symbol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

I disagree , you get to do it once

The only way you can disagree is you believe 4+1+1=5
The game tells you to use maths, and addition.

you still lack the rules to use the 2nd +1 in your equation.

kambien wrote:
you still lack the rules to use the 2nd +1 in your equation.

Prove it.

I've shown where all the permissions are granted.


Edit: just to simplify things, so we can focus on the correct issue, you agree that there is nothing restricting the stacking of this power? You're just arguing that there's nothing allowing it, correct?

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:
you still lack the rules to use the 2nd +1 in your equation.

Prove it.

I've shown where all the permissions are granted.

you have never proved you are allowed to stack the same power twice in your equation

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

kambien wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That symbol grants permission to add to the strength an infinite number of times.

I disagree , you get to do it once

Why do you disagree? You can't just 'disagree' with mathematical truth and then not provide an explanation.

because "+" is not a infinity symbol

It does not need to be - it's just an operator. However, it can be used infinite times - there is no limit of the number of operations permitted in an equation, and adding additional hammerhands just adds additional operations.

kambien wrote:
you have never proved you are allowed to stack the same power twice in your equation

"+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?
And the rule in question uses this symbol, correct?
And we're told to resolve the power?
And that multiple castings of the same power is allowed from separate Psykers?

Let's get these questions out if the way first. Your answer is yes to all of them?