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.

 grendel083 wrote:

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?

Yep

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

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?

Yep

Great.

And your happy with Stacking and cumulative being pretty much the same thing?

Now, are you arguing that addition is not cumulative?
Or
That the game doesn't say that something that is cumulative is cumulative?
(In other words, does the game need to tell you that a duck is a duck? Personally if the game says duck, I'm happy that it it's talking about a duck. No need to tell me that a duck is in fact a duck, the double explanation isn't needed).

 grendel083 wrote:
"+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?

Believe the mathematical symbol for addiction is a small pile of white powder.

Any debate should be centered around the restriction of multiple applications of the same blessing power stacking (see psychic section of the brb) and whether Hammer Hand should be considered a blessing. After all multiple applications of bolters all stack up in the wound pool

I'd let it stack.

wtnind wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
"+" is the mathematical symbol for addiction correct?

Believe the mathematical symbol for addiction is a small pile of white powder.

Ha! Curse you autocorrect!

 grendel083 wrote:
And your happy with Stacking and cumulative being pretty much the same thing?

They are close

 grendel083 wrote:
Now, are you arguing that addition is not cumulative?

Nope

 grendel083 wrote:
That the game doesn't say that something that is cumulative is cumulative?
(In other words, does the game need to tell you that a duck is a duck? Personally if the game says duck, I'm happy that it it's talking about a duck. No need to tell me that a duck is in fact a duck, the double explanation isn't needed).

So the game says duck and you crouch , then the game says duck again , do you stand back up and duck again ( permission wasn't given to stand though ) or do you look foul ?

kambien wrote:
So the game says duck and you crouch , then the game says duck again , do you stand back up and duck again ( permission wasn't given to stand though ) or do you look foul ?

Ha! Ok, Duck wasn't the best example.

How about "chair". There's no game defined definition of a chair.
If the rule refers to a chair, do you need a further rule stating that a chair is a chair?
Or are you happy enough with what they're referring to?

So addition is cumulative?

And you are told to add twice?

Yet you are saying you are not allowed to add twice?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So addition is cumulative?
And you are told to add twice?
Yet you are saying you are not allowed to add twice?

not quite , are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So addition is cumulative?
And you are told to add twice?
Yet you are saying you are not allowed to add twice?

not quite , are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

You said yourself the same power can be resolved more than once by different Psykers.
They both giving +1
And addition is cumulative.
There's even a rule called Multiple Modifiers.

So yes. You can add twice.

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So addition is cumulative?
And you are told to add twice?
Yet you are saying you are not allowed to add twice?

not quite , are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

You said yourself the same power can be resolved more than once by different Psykers.
They both giving +1
And addition is cumulative.

So yes. You can add twice.

Being resolved does not mean the effects are applied .

kambien wrote:
Being resolved does not mean the effects are applied .

Then what permission do you have to apply the first effect?

We're told to resolve. That means applying a +1 modifier. So that's what we do. It's as simple as that.
First time, second, fortieth doesn't matter.

Can you apply more than one modifier? Yes, see the rule "multiple modifiers"
Is +1 cumulative, can it be added to another number? Yes it can.

All the permissions are there.

 grendel083 wrote:
We're told to resolve. That means applying a +1 modifier. So that's what we do. It's as simple as that.

is wrong and has been pointed out multiple times
resolve is not blanket permission to apply the effects. you can resolve and have no effects applied. that entire premise is wrong

 grendel083 wrote:
Can you apply more than one modifier? Yes, see the rule "multiple modifiers"

No the reasoning is wrong, you can apply more then one modifier because you are given permissions to do so from different sources. Then you use pg2 on how to apply them. The same source is never mentioned as being cumulative

 grendel083 wrote:
Is +1 cumulative, can it be added to another number? Yes it can.

the adding of modifiers has never been in question.

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
We're told to resolve. That means applying a +1 modifier. So that's what we do. It's as simple as that.

is wrong and has been pointed out multiple times
resolve is not blanket permission to apply the effects. you can resolve and have no effects applied. that entire premise is wrong

Then how to we apply the first modifier, if we're only told to resolve it, and that somehow doesn't involve applying the effects?

How do we apply the effects of any power or special rule? If they only say resolve?

How do we resolve the power without apply the effects?

I think someone needs to quote the exact rule for Hammerhand for kambien. iirc it's wording is such that you must immediately add +1 strength to the characteristic of the effected models. You can't finish casting hammerhand without doing what the power says, and the power tells you to add +1 strength to the model's characteristic. It doesn't say "while under the effects of hammerhand models get +1 strength". It simply gives the characteristic modifier and finishes.

kambien wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

kambien wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So addition is cumulative?
And you are told to add twice?
Yet you are saying you are not allowed to add twice?

not quite , are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

You said yourself the same power can be resolved more than once by different Psykers.
They both giving +1
And addition is cumulative.

So yes. You can add twice.

Being resolved does not mean the effects are applied .

So cite permission to apply the effects of the first hammerhand

It is the exact same permission each time, yet you have decided that applying a second one needs special permission.

The argument is internally deficient.

kambien wrote:
are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

Are you talking about the modifier "1"? Because if your objection is that you can't use a "+1" modifier two times, then what happens when I use Hammerhand and Iron Arm (+1) on the same model? A Biomancy Librarian with an attached Inquisitor would be S+1+1 at that point.

Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again. But if we must, I don't really want to go through all 3 pages, so could someone tell me what bogus argument is the non-stacking side is using this time?
Multiple modifiers doesn't apply to modifiers that are multiple?
You can't have two Hammerhands "in effect" on the same unit despite it not using the in effect wording at all?
You can resolve the power according to its entry without actually doing the things it tells you to do in the entry?
Everything* is inherently non-cumulative despite what Multiple Modifiers says?

* Everything not including hits, wounds, Vector Strikes, and anything else you use to disprove their argument

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again.

It's about that time, we've had a couple of "void shields and blasts" which threw the schedule.
Our weekly "does X get a cover save behind an Aegis" is due soon.

so could someone tell me what bogus argument is the non-stacking side is using this time?

Theres a lack of permission somewhere. Not sure where.
You can resolve a power, but that doesn't mean you can apply the effects, except for the first one magically, but we don't know why.

Oh, it's going to be one of those threads.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
And again with the failed logic. No where in the BRB is permission given for multiple uses of the same ability on the same target to have a cumulative effect,

We have permission to cast and Resolve the blessings or any psychic power really with no restriction on them stacking, that is why they stack.

The restriction on them stacking is 40k is a permissive rule set , and permissions for them to be cumulative is missing.

Incorrect, we already have permission to cast Hammerhand, or indeed any blessing, on a single unit multiple times from different psykers.

Now you need to find the restriction that disallows this.

kambien wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
But Permission to cast and resolve = always cumulative. such is the case here.

This is only true if you are misusing the terminology of resolve. It does not let you do what you think it lets you do. Determining an outcome is not permission for them to cumulative. It's completely missing from the actual definition of the word.
If you can prove permission is given in anyway for them to stack , page 2 kicks in and tells you how to apply them.

Permission is given by the psychic rules telling us we are allowed to cast and resolve the power. In hammerhand's case resolving the power results in adding a +1 strength to the unit.

We are also allowed to cast and resolve Hammerhand again on that same target unit, and that is what brings us to page 2 as we now have multiple +1's to the unit's strength.

It is really all right there in the rules.

 grendel083 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again.

It's about that time, we've had a couple of "void shields and blasts" which threw the schedule.
Our weekly "does X get a cover save behind an Aegis" is due soon.

We interrupt this thread to bring you a non-related question.

If I have a Grot 3" behind an ADL does it get a cover save? Some people at my store said you need to be within 2" but couldn't find anything about that.

We now return to the debate already in progress.

 Happyjew wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Haven't we done this recently? I mean, usually we wait a couple of months before doing it again.

It's about that time, we've had a couple of "void shields and blasts" which threw the schedule.
Our weekly "does X get a cover save behind an Aegis" is due soon.

We interrupt this thread to bring you a non-related question.

If I have a Grot 3" behind an ADL does it get a cover save? Some people at my store said you need to be within 2" but couldn't find anything about that.

We now return to the debate already in progress.

Just use a Warhammer Fantasy Grot that's standing on a crate.
It's not MFA, it says Grot on the tab mister honest!

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

kambien wrote:
are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

Are you talking about the modifier "1"? Because if your objection is that you can't use a "+1" modifier two times, then what happens when I use Hammerhand and Iron Arm (+1) on the same model? A Biomancy Librarian with an attached Inquisitor would be S+1+1 at that point.

Both an excellent and a horrible example. Excellent, because the BRB tells us the Bonuses from Iron Arm and Hammerhand are cumulative, which supports the Non-Stacking side of the argument. Horrible, because its a bad example to cite if you are attempting to support the Stacking side of the argument.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

kambien wrote:
are you told you are allowed to add the same modifier twice ?

Are you talking about the modifier "1"? Because if your objection is that you can't use a "+1" modifier two times, then what happens when I use Hammerhand and Iron Arm (+1) on the same model? A Biomancy Librarian with an attached Inquisitor would be S+1+1 at that point.

Both an excellent and a horrible example. Excellent, because the BRB tells us the Bonuses from Iron Arm and Hammerhand are cumulative, which supports the Non-Stacking side of the argument. Horrible, because its a bad example to cite if you are attempting to support the Stacking side of the argument.

SJ

Functionally it reminds us. It does nothing to support e inn stack side. Nothing at all.

Find a single restriction yet? Or a reason why 4+1+1 doesn't equal 6?

4 + HH + MoT + IA = 7

4 + HH + HH + HH = 5

Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
4 + HH + MoT + IA = 7

4 + HH + HH + HH = 5

Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.

SJ

And it states same sources aren't?
Im sure you can provide a page number for that quote

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
4 + HH + MoT + IA = 7

4 + HH + HH + HH = 5

Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.

SJ

And it states same sources aren't?
Im sure you can provide a page number for that quote

Bolded and underlined, for those unable to find the info in my wall of text.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
4 + HH + MoT + IA = 7

4 + HH + HH + HH = 5

Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.

SJ

And it states same sources aren't?
Im sure you can provide a page number for that quote

Bolded and underlined, for those unable to find the info in my wall of text.

SJ

That says that some sources are cumulative.

It does not say that other sources are not cumulative.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
4 + HH + MoT + IA = 7

4 + HH + HH + HH = 5

Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.

SJ

I see we are back to the "Modifiers are special rules" argument again. Which means a +1 from HH, and a +1 from IA would not stack because models cannot benefit from the same special rule (+1) multiple times.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
4 + HH + MoT + IA = 7

4 + HH + HH + HH = 5

Why? Because different sources are cumulative, per pages 32 and 68 of the BRB.

SJ

And it states same sources aren't?
Im sure you can provide a page number for that quote

Bolded and underlined, for those unable to find the info in my wall of text.

SJ

Strange, I've checked those pages several times, and not once does it say same sources are NOT cumulative.

Could you please quote the line?