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:

 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 ?

In the case of saves, the + sign is on the wrong side of the number to parse mathematically (at least without a second number) and we are specifically informed about how we are to read that in the context of the rules.

kambien wrote:

 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 ?

The "+" in cover saves refers to addition indeed as "3+" means "anything greater or equal than 3" or "die results 3 and 4 and 5 and 6".

Now, sorry, but I am starting to cough by someone burning a few strawmen.

I assume that my previous post above was correct?

kambien wrote:

 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 ?

Something like stealth that gives +1 to your cover save, and something like shrouded that gives +2 to your cover save, Yes they are cumulative because of the rules of math...

Stealth twice is not cumulative because of the rule "Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." (32)

Had that not been there two instances of stealth would indeed add +1 and +1 to your cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:
(you forgot to underline anything)

Thank you, fixed my post. not sure how I did that, need more coffee.

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.

"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative." (68) Does noty mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative.

/e: nm.

Actually, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative, because the statement is permissive. As we have permission for different powers to be cumulative, by omission same powers are not cumulative. That is how a permissive rule set works; permission notes what you can do, omission leaves everything not noted as being things you can't do.

We have permission for the effects of different powers to be cumulative, in a rule set that has already informed us that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. By omission, multiple uses of the same power are not cumulative, because the effects of different abilities are cumulative.

SJ

The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:

Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings

Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect

What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Actually, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative, because the statement is permissive. As we have permission for different powers to be cumulative, by omission same powers are not cumulative. That is how a permissive rule set works; permission notes what you can do, omission leaves everything not noted as being things you can't do.

We have permission for the effects of different powers to be cumulative, in a rule set that has already informed us that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. By omission, multiple uses of the same power are not cumulative, because the effects of different abilities are cumulative.

SJ

No. Just, no. Stop pulling that same illogical argument out each time.

Permission to do X is NOT SAYING you may not do Y. It is, in fact, silent on Y.

Given you must be aware you are posting the same logical fallacy repeatedly, I assume you are now trolling.

Oh, and we have permission from page two, you cannot cite denial of this permission - not using written rules that exist anyway - so our argument is proven. Please correct your postings to reflect that they are not, in fact, based on a single written rule.

Bausk - + is! by definition, accumulative. As in, your opinion is noted, but it is plain wrong.. As in, you cannot do maths if your opinion were corrxt.

As you have been told, and again must be able to parse, the ONLY REASON 2*Furious Charge doesn't result in +2S is BECAUSE of the special rule. Not in spite of it, which is what your argument leads to .

 Sigvatr wrote:
The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:

Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings

Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect

What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?

Hammerhand
Might of Titan
Iron Arm

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:Actually, "Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative" does mean that the effects of the same psychic powers are not cumulative, because the statement is permissive. As we have permission for different powers to be cumulative, by omission same powers are not cumulative. That is how a permissive rule set works; permission notes what you can do, omission leaves everything not noted as being things you can't do.

Yes, it does not provide permission to stack multiple uses of the same power cumulatively, fortunately we have that permission from other sources.

We have permission for the effects of different powers to be cumulative, in a rule set that has already informed us that multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. By omission, multiple uses of the same power are not cumulative, because the effects of different abilities are cumulative.

Omission does not provide denial, it simply means that the assumption of denial still stands unless another rule provides permission.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:

Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings

Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect

What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?

Hammerhand
Might of Titan
Iron Arm

SJ

I think you misread his post...

He said "the exact same effect"

Hammerhand does not have the exact same effect as Might of Titan which in turn does not have the exact same effect as Iron Arm...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:

Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings

Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect

What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?

Hammerhand
Might of Titan
Iron Arm

SJ

I think you misread his post...

He said "the exact same effect"

Hammerhand does not have the exact same effect as Might of Titan which in turn does not have the exact same effect as Iron Arm...

All three provide a bonus to Strength, are psychic powers, and are cumulative per the BRB. In fact, it is because they are different that their bonus to Strength is cumulative.

SJ

He asked "What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?"

Hammerhand does not have the exact same effect as Might of Titan which in turn does not have the exact same effect as Iron Arm.

So listing them as having the exact same effect is incorrect.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The problem is the "different" that can be used for both sides of the argumentation:

Pro: "different" refers to different sources / castings

Con: "different" refers to different powers being cast with the same effect

What different psychic powers have the exact same effect though?

This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two. There can never be multiple castings of the same named power from a single psyker so even entertaining the notion that different references different psykers casting the same named power is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having the exact same effect is not what the rule states. It referenced bonuses not effects and definitely doesn't state anything of exact bonuses. The three examples of powers given all grant a bonus to S and all 3 are different thus legal.

 Bausk wrote:
This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.

Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?

We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6

Bausk - so you've not agreed yet that + is accumulative by definition? Or will you claim that the reason it isn't is that you cannot gain the bonus from special rules more than once, despite that being because there is a specific rule for that case, which is nothing to do with +?

Jeffersonian - so no response to the fact your argument was debunked? Or will you ignore it and claim, again, that permission to do X is a restriction on doing Y?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.

Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?

We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6

As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan. If the +1s are both com Hammerhand or Might, then your 4+1+1 example will only net you a 5. The rules for this are explain on pages 32 and 68, which change the main rules of the game found on page 2.

SJ

PS - I no longer feed the Nos. Nos refuses to prove his statements, which violates the forum tenets. He also further violates the forum tenets by telling others their arguments are wrong without backing up his statements with rules. As such, I choose to simply ignore him, rather than feeding him. Maybe he'll go away, or start following the tenets.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.

Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?

We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6

As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan. If the +1s are both com Hammerhand or Might, then your 4+1+1 example will only net you a 5. The rules for this are explain on pages 32 and 68, which change the main rules of the game found on page 2.

Please provide a rule that supports the underlined, I cannot find any on either page you have stated.

PS - I no longer feed the Nos. Nos refuses to prove his statements, which violates the forum tenets. He also further violates the forum tenets by telling others their arguments are wrong without backing up his statements with rules. As such, I choose to simply ignore him, rather than feeding him. Maybe he'll go away, or start following the tenets.

Judging by your recent arguments I would accuse you of this before I would nosferatu.

 Bausk wrote:


This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two. There can never be multiple castings of the same named power from a single psyker so even entertaining the notion that different references different psykers casting the same named power is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Having the exact same effect is not what the rule states. It referenced bonuses not effects and definitely doesn't state anything of exact bonuses. The three examples of powers given all grant a bonus to S and all 3 are different thus legal.

First of all, note that I am merely pointing out what either side has to offer, not really having taken a stance yet.

In general: a bonus of +1 to Strength is a different effect than a bonus of +2 to Strength. It's a different effect by its very definition: it does something different. Different psykers casting the same power isn't "ridiculous" - Hammerhand, for example, is that exact situation.

Jeffersonian - another lie. Use the yellow triangle of friendship if you think I am trolling, however it is a complete lie to state I have not backed up my argument when I have. I have also be debunked YOUR argument time and time again, yet you pretend that you based-on-a-fallacy argument holds any merit.

As such, your argument is conceded. Nothing you post here should be considered RAW by anyone.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
This has to be the worst argument for stacking next to claiming page two.

Have you found any rules that say 4+1+1 does not = 6?

We are still waiting, because P.2 clearly says 4+1+1 = 6

As has been quoted and cited and referenced and paraphrased multiple times (and thus are cumulative per the BRB), 4+1+1 only equals 6 if the +1s are from different abilities, such as Hammerhand and Might of Titan. If the +1s are both com Hammerhand or Might, then your 4+1+1 example will only net you a 5. The rules for this are explain on pages 32 and 68, which change the main rules of the game found on page 2.

Please provide a rule that supports the underlined, I cannot find any on either page you have stated.

As I stated in the very post you are quoting, the rules in question have been quoted, cited, referenced, and paraphrased in this very thread. Despite your inability to read (or is it your refusal to read?), I re-quote the quoted quotes:

Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

Precedence is set for multiples of the same modifiers only being cumulative when coming from different abilities. You will of course argue that psychic powers are not special rules, to which was already quoted from page 41 of the BRB, top of page, under Psyker:
"A model with this special rules is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."

Pages 66-69 cover the special rules for the Psyker USR, just like page 36 covers the special rules for the Deep Strike USR. On page 68, last sentence under Resolve Psychic Power:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Without the above quote from page 68, no psychic powers would be cumulative due to the restriction quoted from page 32. Taking both the restriction on page 32 as well as the permission on page 68, we are able to stack modifiers from different powers, yet are not able to stack modifiers from multiple uses of the same power. Further, we are informed on page 32, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."

An example of a "main game rule" is the order of operations found on page 2 under Multiple Modifiers. And example of a special rule bending or breaking a main game rule is found on page 25 of the Grey Knight codex under Hammerhand, 2nd paragraph:
"This power is used during the Assault phase in either player's turn, after moves have been made, but before any blows have been struck." Here we see a rule allowing a psychic power to be used during the Assault phase, rather than the Movement or Shooting phases, and permission to use the power during your opponent's turn.

Next, we have in the same paragraph, "if the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase." Here we have a rule granting a characteristic modifier only during the Assault phase, which is provided to all models in unit much like a Blessing.

And finally, the last sentence in that paragraph, "Note that this Strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for Nemesis Daemon hammers and so forth." In this rule, we break the main game rules found on page 2 by applying an addition before multiplication.

All three sentences in that paragraph on page 25 of the GK codex fall under the rules and restrictions detailed on page 32 and page 68 of the BRB. This means that multiple uses of Hammerhand will not provide more than a single +1 to Strength. Thankfully, Might if Titan is on the same page, has an additional +1 to Strength, and tells us, "The Strength bonus from Might of Titan is cumulative with that from Hammerhand."

I can lead a gamer to rules, but I can't make them think.

PS - I no longer feed the Nos. Nos refuses to prove his statements, which violates the forum tenets. He also further violates the forum tenets by telling others their arguments are wrong without backing up his statements with rules. As such, I choose to simply ignore him, rather than feeding him. Maybe he'll go away, or start following the tenets.

Judging by your recent arguments I would accuse you of this before I would nosferatu.

Feel free to ignore me, then. At least then I will know why you don't read what you quote.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

Psychic powers are NOT Special Rules. This is extremely important. I made a detailed post showing why they aren't.

In 40k, special rules are very specific. Special Rules are a rules term on their own.

Psyker is a USR, that is fully correct! Psychic Powers, however, are not. They are Psychic Powers and therefore a rules term on their own.

You gotta be real precise when using those terms and in regards to the "special rule" term confusion:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

Psychic powers are NOT Special Rules. This is extremely important. I made a detailed post showing why they aren't.

In 40k, special rules are very specific. Special Rules are a rules term on their own.

Psyker is a USR, that is fully correct! Psychic Powers, however, are not. They are Psychic Powers and therefore a rules term on their own.

You gotta be real precise when using those terms and in regards to the "special rule" term confusion:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree with it. See my post above.

SJ

Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As I stated in the very post you are quoting, the rules in question have been quoted, cited, referenced, and paraphrased in this very thread. Despite your inability to read (or is it your refusal to read?), I re-quote the quoted quotes:

Pg. 32, BRB, last paragraph under A Compendium of Special Rules:
"Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once. However, the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative."

Precedence is set for multiples of the same modifiers only being cumulative when coming from different abilities. You will of course argue that psychic powers are not special rules, to which was already quoted from page 41 of the BRB, top of page, under Psyker:
"A model with this special rules is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own section starting on page 66."

Pages 66-69 cover the special rules for the Psyker USR, just like page 36 covers the special rules for the Deep Strike USR. On page 68, last sentence under Resolve Psychic Power:
"Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative."

Without the above quote from page 68, no psychic powers would be cumulative due to the restriction quoted from page 32. Taking both the restriction on page 32 as well as the permission on page 68, we are able to stack modifiers from different powers, yet are not able to stack modifiers from multiple uses of the same power. Further, we are informed on page 32, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, "Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule."

This is where your argument falls apart, the benefit of the Psyker USR is not "all the rules for Psykers on pages 66-68" it is being a Psyker. The rules on pages 66-68 are for Psykers, not the Psyker USR, and are therefore not part of the Special Rule. +1 strength modifier from Hammerhand is not subject to the restriction on page 32, leaving you without a source of denial.

Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?

I posted rules supporting my view. You post "no, you're wrong!", without supporting your point of view with actual rules. As such, I respect that you have an opinion, I just disagree because your opinion has no support in the rules.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?

I posted rules supporting my view. You post "no, you're wrong!", without supporting your point of view with actual rules. As such, I respect that you have an opinion, I just disagree because your opinion has no support in the rules.

SJ

Actually, you posted an opinion, based on a logical fallacy, and then posted rules that say nothing to do with what you're claiming. So no, you have a factually incorrect opinion, disproven by written rules, and nothing more.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Hmm...I am not sure what you disagree on. Do you disagree on Psychic Powers not being special rules?

I posted rules supporting my view. You post "no, you're wrong!", without supporting your point of view with actual rules. As such, I respect that you have an opinion, I just disagree because your opinion has no support in the rules.

SJ

Huh? I quoted directly from the book, from the special rules chapter in the BRB O_o

Here, for reference, again...

 Sigvatr wrote:
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:

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.

Please refer to actual points and back your statements up with (in the very best case) rule quotations. Otherwise, this thread has lost its justification. Remember that the aim of YMDC isn't to find out who "wins" a rules discussion. Everyone makes mistakes when using the vague rules GW offers and this applies to new people as well to others with thousands of posts. The aim of YMDC is to get as close to the truth as possible by stricly applying RAW, whether it makes sense or not.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Actually, you posted an opinion, based on a logical fallacy, and then posted rules that say nothing to do with what you're claiming. So no, you have a factually incorrect opinion, disproven by written rules, and nothing more.

Don't be too harsh, he did post an argument based upon quoted rules.

Sigvatr, I was responding to your post where you quoted my post, which I quoted. I was not responding to your post where you quoted someone else.

SJ

...and what about the points stated there? Oo