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.

Edit - This is not acceptable, Rule #1 is be polite. If you feel there is a problem, your solution is to hit the yellow triangle, not take it upon yourself to insult other users.

Thank you. MT11

The point you clearly missed with my rage example is a + is not inherently cumulative. Even rage has conditions for ita use, they just are not as complex as the Psyker USR.

And no nos, I was not. Psyker USR on page 41 states that the rules for it are detailed in the section from page 66. The second paragraph of this section, which again as per page 41 are the rules for the Psyker USR, details where powers come from (read as chosen from).

Also in the pages 66-69, the rules for the Psyker USR, you will find manifesting powers, resolving powers, types of powers and even where to reference powers from. All this on a detailed section because they couldn't fit it all into the same space as other USRs.

The fact it has it's own section doesn't change the fact the entire section is the same as the one or so paragraphs other USRs get and as such is bound by the same rules.

There is a point of weariness though, when its the 5th or so thread where the same tired, debunked, illogical, made up from thin air arguments are presented as if they are new, or havent been proven wrong, and by the same posters. For example the "all psychic powers are special rules" "argument", whichy has bene proven wrong, comprehensively, in every single thread. Not even a shred of possibilty remains that that argument is correct - none. Yet, every time it rears its head.

Same for "permission to do X means you CANNOT do Y!" exercise in logical failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:
The point you clearly missed with my rage example is a + is not inherently cumulative. Even rage has conditions for ita use, they just are not as complex as the Psyker USR.

No, the point you are clearly missing is that + IS INHERENTLY CUMULATIVE, howveer the rules for Special Rules *restricts* that

There is NO SUCH restriciton on the +1S from hammerhand. Not one. As such, the GENERAL permisison for + to be cumulative remains.

One more time - the psychic power hammerhand is not a special rule. It IS a rule, but not a Special Rule.

Glad to see Nos is still relying on Multiple Modification as his only argument. Then when he's said it enough time to reaffirm his belief in it he turns to calling for the thread to be locked. Won't be long now till he starts ignoring people again. Classic Nos Argument strategy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as to the benefits of the psyker USR, the benefit is the conditional chance to negatively affect your enemy, positively affect yourself/allies or create an effect that can conditionaly do either.

If said clearly beneficial effects can or cannot be cumulative is up to the conditions of the type and power itself.

Bausk, I cast Leech Life on one of your units dealing 2 Wounds.
Another psyker casts Leech Life on the same unit causing 2 more Wounds.

How many Wounds does the unit suffer?

 Bausk wrote:
Glad to see Nos is still relying on Multiple Modification as his only argument. Then when he's said it enough time to reaffirm his belief in it he turns to calling for the thread to be locked. Won't be long now till he starts ignoring people again. Classic Nos Argument strategy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as to the benefits of the psyker USR, the benefit is the conditional chance to negatively affect your enemy, positively affect yourself/allies or create an effect that can conditionaly do either.

If said clearly beneficial effects can or cannot be cumulative is up to the conditions of the type and power itself.

So if I cast two PSAs - the same one - at a target, does the unit suffer X or 2X wounds?

No answer to the indisputable fact trhat "+" is cumulative?

It isnt the only argument, as has been proven, just quite a core one you try to ignore, hoping it will go away. It wont.

 Happyjew wrote:
Bausk, I cast Leech Life on one of your units dealing 2 Wounds.
Another psyker casts Leech Life on the same unit causing 2 more Wounds.

How many Wounds does the unit suffer?

Assuming you are not a monsterous creature or Ahriman incorrectly attempting to manifest the same psa twice, successful psychic checks and failed deny checks.

Life Leech the power is a Witchfire so you would use its profile treating it as an assault weapon. Then clearly as per the shooting rules 4 wounds are lost assuming failed invul/cover saves granting the Life Leech Special Rule in the attacks profile.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nos: answered above.

And again + anythin is not in itself inherently cumulative. If that were the case we'd have mok spawn with +4A on the charge. The reason we don't is Rage has conditions from the base universal restriction to conditions of when to apply the modifier.

Please give us an example where a "+" is not used in terms of accumulating something.

Bausk wrote:
Nos: answered above.

And again + anythin is not in itself inherently cumulative. If that were the case we'd have mok spawn with +4A on the charge. The reason we don't is Rage has conditions from the base universal restriction to conditions of when to apply the modifier.

No, again, you are making a really simple mistake.

+ is, by definition, an accumulative operator. AS in, it is axiomatic in mathematics. You cannot dispute this, at all. It is simply not possible to do so.

The reason MoK Spawn dont get +4A is there is a specific restriction on Special Rules, stating you do not get the benefit of them more than once. You've even quoted it, so we know you are aware of it.

If it did not have that restriction, indeed, by Maths being maths, you would have +4A.

There is NO SUCH restriction on the _1S from Hammerhand, as it is indisputably NOT a special rule.

Just by reading these threads makes me wonder if some people would argue in court that they were not speeding, because the speed limit did not specify that they cannot drive 137km/h in 80km/h area.

If it was simply an unqualified +1 then yes I would agree with you. However this is a conditional modifier of +1 that is dependant on a set of qualifiers and not simply an unqualified +1.

"unqualified +1"
"conditional modifier"
"set of qualifiers"

Can you define those terms or did you just make them up?

 Bausk wrote:
The point you clearly missed with my rage example is a + is not inherently cumulative. Even rage has conditions for ita use, they just are not as complex as the Psyker USR.

Well it's a terrible example, as it has a rule that explicitly states that permission is denied for the second rage to apply.

And no nos, I was not. Psyker USR on page 41 states that the rules for it are detailed in the section from page 66. The second paragraph of this section, which again as per page 41 are the rules for the Psyker USR, details where powers come from (read as chosen from).

Also in the pages 66-69, the rules for the Psyker USR, you will find manifesting powers, resolving powers, types of powers and even where to reference powers from. All this on a detailed section because they couldn't fit it all into the same space as other USRs.

Correction, the rules for Psykers are found on pages 66-69, the rules for the Psyker USR is on page 41, said rules being essentially "the unit is a Psyker, check pages 66-69 for what that means". I fully agree that per the Special Rule restriction a model cannot have the Psyker USR applied twice to become a double psyker (without specific permission, see: Kairos Fateweaver), your claims that Psyker rules and by extension the effects of psychic powers are also limited by that rule have no rules support.

 Bausk wrote:
Glad to see Nos is still relying on Multiple Modification as his only argument. Then when he's said it enough time to reaffirm his belief in it he turns to calling for the thread to be locked. Won't be long now till he starts ignoring people again. Classic Nos Argument strategy.

Stones, glass houses, you know the drill.

Naw wrote:
Just by reading these threads makes me wonder if some people would argue in court that they were not speeding, because the speed limit did not specify that they cannot drive 137km/h in 80km/h area.

Except here we HAVE permisison to drive 137km/h, as the 80km/h restriction does not apply to our class of vehicle, and we have general permission to drive as fast as we wish.

Bausk - any chance of you finding any rules to match what you wrote? Those terms are new.

"+" is an accumulative modifier by definition. Do you agree or disagree?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to summate:

Permission is given, consistently, throughout the entire set of rules, for +1S to be added to +1S, as long as it isnt coming from the same special rule, or from something else that adds in an explicit restriction.

No amount of handwaving, and misrepresentation that "abilities" are restricted from being gained more than once, and illogic in claiming that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y, etc will get rid of that.

Can this thread be locked again? Yet again the no stack side cannot prove their case in any way.

false.

permission is not given for +1 str from all sources to be +1 strength.

rules are given for how to apply modifiers =/= permission

if the rules on p.2 were blanket permission then furious charge would stack with itself.

there is no permission for the same modifier from a psychic power to be given if the same psychic power is already giving a modifier, there is permission for different psychic powers to give the same modifier. hammerhand is not different from hammerhand.

There is no outright denial of permission but there is outright permission of allowing only different modifiers to stack. if it were meant to be other than different modifiers why did they specify different modifiers may stack, instead they would not have to have anything in there about stacking as p.2 would cover it solely like some people seem to mistakenly believe.

RAW permission exists for different modifiers from blessings/maledictions.

Permission does not exist for same modifiers from psychic powers to stack.

blaktoof wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So to summate:

Permission is given, consistently, throughout the entire set of rules, for +1S to be added to +1S, as long as it isnt coming from the same special rule, or from something else that adds in an explicit restriction.

No amount of handwaving, and misrepresentation that "abilities" are restricted from being gained more than once, and illogic in claiming that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y, etc will get rid of that.

Can this thread be locked again? Yet again the no stack side cannot prove their case in any way.

false.

permission is not given for +1 str from all sources to be +1 strength.

rules are given for how to apply modifiers =/= permission

if the rules on p.2 were blanket permission then furious charge would stack with itself.

Except for that pesky rule that says "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once."
So the rules on page 2 are blanket permission to do maths. Since resolving the power according to its text requires doing maths, page 2 is sufficient permission. Found a denial yet?

Hmmmm I just re-read the part on psychic powers and stacking and I guess I know where the "con-stacking" side has a misunderstanding. Quoting for future reference:

Unless specificallystated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a
special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple
different special rules are cumulative.

This applies for all kind of "special rules". Now - what are "special rules"? The rulebook says that...

Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of psychic powers,scenario special rules or being hunkered down in a particular type of terrain.

...and this might make people think that psychic powers are special rules. But the rulebook explicitely tells us what "special rules" are:

For ease of consultation, we've presented the special rules in alphabetical order.

...just in front of the list that contains all basic "special rules". At the same time, it says that those aren't all "special rules":

Many troops have their own unique abilities, which are laid out in their codex.

...but then says where to find them.

The often quoted...

Note that bonuses and penalties from different blessings are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1.

...can be found under "Blessings". Hammerhand, however, isn't a blessing as it comes from an old codex and therefore doesn't have a specific type of psychic power:

If a psychic power does not have a type, the rules for using it will be clearly expressed within its entry.

...and in the GK codex, it doesn't say that it cannot stack.

So, all in all, I'd say that it stacks, unless someone can point me to the page where it says that psychic powers do not stack.

Hope that kinda summarized it a bit

Since the non-stacking is continuing with stating that there is denial:

- It is the assault phase after assault moves but before blows are struck, my Psyker has a warp charge available and has not used used Hammerhand this turn, so I have permission to manifest Hammerhand.
- I have permission to follow the usual steps for manifesting a psychic power in pages 67=68.
- I have permission to resolve the power according to instructions in its entry.
- The Hammerhand entry instructs me to apply +1 Strength to the unit, so I do.
- The unit already has had Hammerhand cast on it, so I have 2 +1 Strength modifiers, following the rules for multiple modifiers, Each model's current strength is now +2.

Which step is denied by which rule?

resolution of the power is not permission to ignore other rules, as has been shown by PSAs making it to the resolution step even if they are out of range.

blaktoof wrote:
resolution of the power is not permission to ignore other rules, as has been shown by PSAs making it to the resolution step even if they are out of range.

What other rules? What rule restricts resolution of the power? Please cite one.

edit: And no, a witchfire cannot make it to the resolution step even if it's out of range - checking range and LoS is done before even testing for the power.

Please quote which rules I am ignoring by resolving the psychic power.

you are ignoring that permission is given for psychic powers from different sources to stack.

There is no permission for psychic powers from the same source to stack.

lack of denial is a strawman arguement as there is no denial that I may not perform a shooting attack during an opponents shooting phase, just like there is no denial that I may not pick up my opponents models and move them to put them in range of an assault.

blaktoof wrote:
There is no permission for psychic powers from the same source to stack.

So you're asserting page 2 doesn't apply?
Please explain why.

lack of denial is a strawman arguement as there is no denial that I may not perform a shooting attack during an opponents shooting phase, just like there is no denial that I may not pick up my opponents models and move them to put them in range of an assault.

It's not a strawman - permission exists, now you need to deny it. You've asserted it's denied, please prove it.

blaktoof wrote:
you are ignoring that permission is given for psychic powers from different sources to stack.

No I am not, I am merely discounting it as irrelevant for this discussion.

There is no permission for psychic powers from the same source to stack.

It has already been proved there is, I even have a nice little summary just above.

lack of denial is a strawman arguement as there is no denial that I may not perform a shooting attack during an opponents shooting phase, just like there is no denial that I may not pick up my opponents models and move them to put them in range of an assault.

There is in fact denial for both of those things, it as an assumption of a permissive ruleset that everything is denied without permission.

Lack of denial is not my argument, Proof of permission in the face of lack of denial is my argument.

Still no actual rules quotes to back up your argument, I see.

that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.

blaktoof wrote:
that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.

That's an incorrect and misleading statement. Perhaps you should step back and not examine this issue with a bias? You seem to have one.

blaktoof wrote:
that you think that the RAW that there exists only permission for -different- powers to stack is irrelevant makes all of your other points very meaningless.

A rule that says different powers are cumulative does not apply to this discussion because we are not discussing different powers. Is there some reason you think permission for different powers to stack applies in this instance? It seems quite contradictory to your stance on the issue.

 Bausk wrote:
No the +1S is the effect which is not inherently cumulative. If you did read the sections I suggested and the result is all you have then no it is not. As you are attempting to apply two of the same effect.

(Emphasis mine)
Except the underlined is incorrect.

+1 Strength is inherently cumulative as it follows the basic rules for math. The game uses the basic rules for math as proven by page 2.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...the "+" sign is by definition cumulative, unless you can prove otherwise using 40k rules

This is correct.

(you forgot to underline anything)

 DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
...the "+" sign is by definition cumulative, unless you can prove otherwise using 40k rules

This is correct.

Cover saves provide a "+" symbol , are they now stacking as well ?