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.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.

according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.

Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.

Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.

So there is an actual rule saying only one Hammerhand can be active on a unit at anyone tiime?
Quote it.

Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.

No, you expressed an opinion without any rules support. Again.

Ah...

Tempers everyone.

Please remember that accusations of lying and/or trolling are actually against the rules of this forum.

Please take a minute to refresh yourselves on the rules of this site here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

The Moderator Alert Button is really the best recourse if you feel someone is breaking the rules of the site.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.

according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.

Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.

Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.

So there is an actual rule saying only one Hammerhand can be active on a unit at anyone tiime?
Quote it.

Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.

No, you expressed an opinion without any rules support. Again.

It's that posters one constant. Well the other being misrepresenting any actual rules quoted and pretending they're saying something entirely other, such as pretending "special rules" means the same thing as "ability"

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Hammerhand and Hammerhand are the same, and are not cumulative per the BRB.

Still no rule quote that says that?

Already quoted, in a previous post in this very thread.

No, you posted a quote saying different powers are cumulative.

You have never posted any quote that states same powers aren't cumulative. Nor has anyone else.
There's a good reson for that (the rule doesn't exist).

Permissive rule set. You have to prove same is cumulative when the rules as written state different is cumulative. Proof is on you to show that multiple use of the same ability stack when the BRB gives permission for different abilities to stack. I quoted where permission has not only been given for different to be cumulative, but an actual restriction is given on bonuses or penalties from being cumulative if from multiple uses of the same ability.

This means that YOU have to prove "Same is cumulative"; I don't.

SJ

Bolded your lie.

Special rules do not dtack. Hammerhand isn't a special rule. Neither is "+1S". + is an inherently cumulative, by definition , operator. We are told that multiple modifiers are cumulative, and we Re given multiple modifiers when casting hammerhand twice.

You are as ever breaking the tenets, so please refrain from posting until up you can comply

Bolded what, the word ability? A generic term, often used by GW, including on pg. 32 where they use "ability" as a general descriptor followed "psychic powers" as a more specific example of an "ability"? Is that what you bolded?

So you are saying Stealth and Shrouded do not stack, despite the BRB specifically telling us Stealth and Shrouded stack?

So you are saying Rad Grenades do not stack with Enfeeble, despite the BRB telling us penalties from different abilities stack?

Are you telling us the +1 Strength from Furious Charge does not stack with the +2 Strength from using a Power Axe?

If your goal was to disprove my post of permissive rules telling us Different is cumulative therefore Same is not, making a statement that Special Rules are not cumulative must have been a typo.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Different is cumulative therefore Same is not

That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.

J - no, the actual rules states that you cannot benefit from the same "special rule" more than once. You have lied and claimed this is a restriction on any ability, presumably in a vain attempt to mislead people into thinking +1S would fall into that category.

We do not need to disprove "different is cumulative therefore same is not" , as the premise is based on faulty logic - an exceedingly basic logical fallacy, that you keep insisting on making, presumably again to gloss over the complete lack of any rules support whatsoever in any of your arguments.

Hammer hand is cast, I have +1S. I cast it again. As per the rules on page two, when I have multiple modifiers - and I do, indisputably so when following actual written rules, and not made up garbage - I resolve them as per the normal rules of mathematics. So I add one S again.

RAW. Incontrovertible fact.

Find a restriction -one that exists in real rules, and isn't you lying again - or concede. Until then follow the tenets, and mark your posts as "hywpi", given they are not supported by any rules whatsoever.

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Different is cumulative therefore Same is not

That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.

Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I have a Librarian in a Paladin unit. It is the assault phase after assault moves have been made but before blows are struck, the Paladins manifest Hammerhand and every model in the unit gains +1 strength.
It is still the assault phase after assault move have been made and before blows are struck, The Librarian manifests Hammerhand, as all the models in the unit are still models in the unit, they gain +1 strength.

according to page 2, when I have multiple modifiers, basic math applies, they now have +2 strength.

Oh wow, did I just prove they were cumulative? That was easy.

Paladins manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is manifested, the unit is at +1 Strength.
Librarian manifests Hammerhand. Since Hammerhand is already manifested. The is still at +1 Strength. Libby should have manifested Might of Titan.

Oh wow, did I just demonstrate the rules as written? That was easy.

SJ

So your argument is that multiple Hammerhands are not cumulative because multiple Hammerhands are not cumulative?

Perhaps you should glance through this


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Different is cumulative therefore Same is not

That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.

Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.

SJ

Permissive ruleset, assumptions of denials do not trump rules-granted permission.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Different is cumulative therefore Same is not

That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.

Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.

SJ

You're asking for a double permission.
Permission is already granted, from casting, resolving, allowing multiple modifiers right through the effects being naturally cumulative.

Everything in the order of operations has permission at every turn, you're after a second permission on top of what is already granted. It's not needed. You have permission to do everything involved in applying a second, third... power.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Different is cumulative therefore Same is not

That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.

Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.

SJ

1) that isn't actually how a permissive ruleset works
2) good job we already have permission for multiple modifiers to accumulate then,

Noticing your abundant lack of a single relevant rules quote. Again.

As noted on previous posts you're looking for additional, special bunny permission , somehow not needed the first time not even hinted at in real rules, and hanging your entire argument off it

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

false.

40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Different is cumulative therefore Same is not

That's the problem. Nothing supports this.
There is a rule saying different is cumulative.
There is NOTHING saying same is not. But you made an actual claim that the rules state this as fact.

Permissive rule set. If permission is given for Different to be cumulative, by omission Same is not cumulative.

SJ

1) that isn't actually how a permissive ruleset works
2) good job we already have permission for multiple modifiers to accumulate then,

Noticing your abundant lack of a single relevant rules quote. Again.

As noted on previous posts you're looking for additional, special bunny permission , somehow not needed the first time not even hinted at in real rules, and hanging your entire argument off it

false.

You have permission for multiple modifers to be cumulative for wargear, you have been given no permission for psychic powers to be cumulative. You have been given rules for modifiers which are cumulative and how to apply them.

The only psychic powers which are modifiers that have been given permission to be cumulative are different blessings/maledictions, or powers that spell out they are cumulative in their own description such as the power in the grey knights codex which adds +1 str which is not hammerhand.

blaktoof 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

false.

40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.

A. Page 2 does indeed state that maths applies to multiple modifiers.
B. I feel so sorry for people going through the American education system if you really think addition occurs before multiplication.

blaktoof wrote:
40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.

What page is "40K math" on please?
Specifically the game defined term of what the sysmbol "+" means.

You're stating that "+" means something other than the mathematical symbol for addition?

Blaktoof - so you claim 40k doesn't use bodmas , despite page two giving a lie to your concept? I'd love a page number for that.

Your second statement is also false, as has been proven by others, I just easy interested in whether you would try to actually defend your, frankly, bizarre contention that "normal maths" is addition before multiplication. Before you do I would suggest doing some research,

 grendel083 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
40k math does not follow the rules for math so do not try to apply them. if it did you would have to add or subtract before multiplying or dividing which is not the case in 40k.

What page is "40K math" on please?
Specifically the game defined term of what the sysmbol "+" means.

You're stating that "+" means something other than the mathematical symbol for addition?

and just because an ability in a vacuum allows you to add +1 to something, does not give permission for the same ability to add +1 again. I realize some people fail to understand that and think solely that because it says +1 you can add it infinitum times without having the prerequisite permission for it to actually be cumulative.

first the modifier has to have permission to be cumulative.

Then you can actually cumulatively modify your stat if you have permission, the two are not hand in hand given.

psychic powers as per the entry for multiple modifiers are not one of the the things that are given blanket permission to be cumulative.

when you go into the more specific rules for psychic powers you then see that different blessings/maledictions are given permission to be cumulative. There is no permission for modifiers from the same blessings/maledictions to be cumulative.

so as you have multiples of the same blessing on a unit you then look at the blessing, does it allow for it to be cumulative with itself in its own rules? No.

Do the rules for blessings allow for multiples of the same blessings to be cumulative? no.

Do the rules for modifiers allow for psychic powers to modify a stat on their own without looking at the psychic power rules? no.

So you have a section at the beginning of the book that tells you how to modify a stat with wargear/special rules. And how to apply cumulative modifiers from war gear or special rules, and we have psychic powers which are not special rules. We can look in their own contained rules to see how they modify stats, but alas only different modifiers are cumulative, and we last have the entry for hammehand which does not say it is cumulative.

so nope, not cumulative.

if it were given permission to be cumulative we -could- go to the heading in the book which tells you how to apply multiple modifiers to a statistics which are cumulative, but that permission is not there.

We really don't need the insults and digs.

If that's all you can post..... then you won't be posting.

"+" is by definition cumulative. Additional permission is not needed.

I cannot find anywhere in the rulebook that + is cumulative.

I can find in the rulebook places where a single modifier either adds or subtracts to a stat.

I can also find in the rulebook places where multiple modifiers from different sources for psychic powers are cumulative.

I can also find in the rulebook places were modifiers from wargear and special rules are cumulative.

I can find rules regarding how to apply modifers which are stated as being cumulative.

But I cannot find anywhere that simply saying something adds or subtracts makes it always cumulative.

Do you have a page number that says all, or any modifier is cumulative?

blaktoof wrote:
I cannot find anywhere in the rulebook that + is cumulative.

Can you find anywhere in the rulebook where "+" is defined?
If there's no rulebook definition then you'll have to look at the actual meaning of the symbol. You'll find that very much is cumulative. It's called addition.

I appreciate your opinion that blanket all things that say add should add.

I feel the rulebook does not agree with it in the sections regarding psychic powers or USRs however.

I understand outside of 40k if you have 5 of one thing and get +1 of that thing and +1 of that thing that is 7. However 40k has rules that sometimes contradict this by not allowing you to have +1 of the same thing more than once even if you have more than one of that thing unless you have been told you may.

Yes, they restrict you, explicitly, otherwise the inherent definitively cumulative operator + would apply .

Have you found the rsstriction on + yet? Page and para.

They have no permission to modify a stat anywhere on their own, permissive rules set.

The restriction for universal special rules exists because they were already given permission to modify stats under modifiers p.2 which pertains to special rules and wargear. As psychic powers are neither special rules or wargear the rules on p.2 do not give you permission to use them to resolve the effects of psychic powers.

The rules under the psychic powers for blessing maledictions however do, they however only give permission for modifiers from different blessings to be cumulative.

Some psychic power entries do give permission for their specific power to be cumulative with itself, or in some cases [see grey knight codex hammer hand + might of titans] for the separate modifiers that modify the same stat to be cumulative.

so yes, there is no explicit restriction, there is just no permission anywhere for you to have the same psychic power be cumulative.

"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."

So, pray tell, are the rules for Hammerhand rules?

yes...however RAW they are neither special rules nor wargear so under the section for modifiers p.2 you cannot use those rules to modify a stat with hammerhand.

is hammerhand wargear or a special rule?

blaktoof wrote:
They have no permission to modify a stat anywhere on their own, permissive rules set.

The restriction for universal special rules exists because they were already given permission to modify stats under modifiers p.2 which pertains to special rules and wargear. As psychic powers are neither special rules or wargear the rules on p.2 do not give you permission to use them to resolve the effects of psychic powers.

The rules under the psychic powers for blessing maledictions however do, they however only give permission for modifiers from different blessings to be cumulative.

Some psychic power entries do give permission for their specific power to be cumulative with itself, or in some cases [see grey knight codex hammer hand + might of titans] for the separate modifiers that modify the same stat to be cumulative.

so yes, there is no explicit restriction, there is just no permission anywhere for you to have the same psychic power be cumulative.

So the rules on page 2 don't apply, even though they apply to any rule which modifies? Please explain this contradiction between your argument and actual written rules.

blaktoof wrote:
yes...however RAW they are neither special rules nor wargear so under the section for modifiers p.2 you cannot use those rules to modify a stat with hammerhand.

is hammerhand wargear or a special rule?

Are you saying that Hammerhand, which has rules that state that it modifies the strength characteristic, is, in fact, not a rule that modifies a characteristic?

My argument is based solely on RAW, and like many people does not reflect how people actually play the game.

the rules on p.2 apply to any rule which is allowed to cumulative modify.

the rules on p.2 for adding a modifier are stated as pertaining to Wargear and special rules.

is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.

blaktoof wrote:
My argument is based solely on RAW, and like many people does not reflect how people actually play the game.

the rules on p.2 apply to any rule which is allowed to cumulative modify.

the rules on p.2 for adding a modifier are stated as pertaining to Wargear and special rules.

is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.

"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." (2)

I don't see the word Special Rules in there...

Two castings of Hammerhand are most definitely a combination of rules or wargear that modify a characteristic...

but a single one is not, and under the section for modifiers it states "special rules or wargear" is hammerhand either of those?

blaktoof wrote:


is hammerhand wargear or special rules? no.

Hammerhand and its effects are a combination of rules and...

 DeathReaper wrote:


"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." (2)

...this is assuming we still talk about the OP's question here.