Hammerhand and Nemesis Force Weapons Question

Well, Tiberius, I posted my proof above, which does cover all the relevent rules regarding the stacking of benefits from psychic powers. In a normal debat, my point has been supported. That means that if you disagree, the burden falls upon you to provide a supported argument to prove your point or disprove my point.

So, I'll ask again that you please cite any set of rules within 6th edition Warhammer 40,000 that supports the stacking of multiple castings of the same psychic power.

SJ

Omenos wrote:

Tiberius wrote:We know the 5th ed. FAQ clarified that hammerhand is allowed to stack with itself. The 6th ed. FAQ mentions nothing of this, but the wording in the codex has not changed.

That does not automatically therefore mean that it's allowed, 5th ed and 6th ed are two different rule sets, just because one allowed it after an FAQ doesnt mean that it is automatically allowed because it hasn't been clarified. If that was your only argument my eyebrows would be raised right now (don't worry they're not up as secretly i would like a convincing arguement to say i could gave a S8 deathstar for less than 500 points :p )

A FAQ from another edition does not affect the current ruleset, of course. But since the FAQ consists of GW's official clarifications rather than rules amendments (that's the Errata), the FAQ remains valid unless rule changes or additions changes the properties. And as you can tell my opinion is that nothing as such has happened since the transition to 6th. The power description hasn't changed, thus it does exactly the same thing it did in 5th. Unless new or changed rules prohibits it, Hammerhand still stacks. The 5th ed. FAQ only clarified this, it stacked even before the FAQ was presented.

Omenos wrote:

Tiberius wrote:Hence, it is up to you to cite the rule which states that a psychic power cannot be cast on a unit several times as long as it originates from different sources.

Quick question, how do we know that a unit can't target the same unit with the same power multiple times?

Page 67 of the BRB, second paragraph: "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn - even if the manifestation is attempt is not successful." So that ones pretty clear.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Well, Tiberius, I posted my proof above, which does cover all the relevent rules regarding the stacking of benefits from psychic powers. In a normal debat, my point has been supported. That means that if you disagree, the burden falls upon you to provide a supported argument to prove your point or disprove my point.

So, I'll ask again that you please cite any set of rules within 6th edition Warhammer 40,000 that supports the stacking of multiple castings of the same psychic power.

SJ

You haven't yet provided anything that denies the point I raised:

*Special rules don't stack per page 32, but nowhere in the BRB is it stated that Psychic powers are special rules - only advanced rules. (this is up to you to prove false if you wish for your argument to be valid)

*Psychic powers can be cast multiple times on the same target, only not by the same psyker. (Due to the Psykers power rules concerning targeting on page 67: the only thing mentioned is picking a target, nowhere is it said that a unit is rendered an invalid target because the same power was cast upon them by another psyker. Thus Hammerhand can be cast on a unit more than once if it contains multiple psykers with the power.)

*Hammerhand applies a characteristic modifier, not a special rule which in turn applies a characteristic modifier (since the target unit simply has +1 strength rather than "units affected by hammerhand receives +1 strength" - see why after the last bullet point). Had the wording been different you would have been correct, but this exact point is what allowed Hammerhand to stack in 5th. This hasn't changed, and thus you can't deny it's true even if it's no longer mentioned in the FAQ. The FAQ only clarified this, it has been true since the codex was released. Semantics matter.

*Multiple characteristic modifiers stack. (BRB page 2., "Multiple Modifiers")

It all comes down to the wording of the power. Had it been [...] Models affected by Hammerhand have +1 strength [...]", there would have been no point for me to argue since a unit remains affected by a buff only once no matter how many times you cast it, unless otherwise specifically stated. That's semantics, and that's why different powers being cumulative is mentioned (which is a clarification, as it would not need to be mentioned with the rules written as they are). Hammerhand simply sets the strength 1 point higher than normal, skipping the "affected by" and thus removing Hammerhand as an effect from the equation. Hammerhand is the power and thus the cause, the only lasting effect is +1 strength - no buff/special rule is involved.

This is what I stated in my earlier posts, although now it should be clarified, and your "proof" does not disprove it. Your proof isn't relevant, since I already disproved it. Therefore the burden of proof is yours to bear, and you need to shoot down the above reasoning with proper rules in order for your standpoint to be correct.

Tiberius wrote:A FAQ from another edition does not affect the current ruleset, of course. But since the FAQ consists of GW's official clarifications rather than rules amendments (that's the Errata), the FAQ remains valid unless rule changes or additions changes the properties. And as you can tell my opinion is that nothing as such has happened since the transition to 6th. The power description hasn't changed, thus it does exactly the same thing it did in 5th. Unless new or changed rules prohibits it, Hammerhand still stacks. The 5th ed. FAQ only clarified this, it stacked even before the FAQ was presented.

The most recent FAQ takes precedence, replacing the last FAQ to be published as shown by the rules updates as well as the date stampon the document. Since we are on GK Codex 6th Ed FAQ 1.3, we can correctly determine that any FAQ published for 5th Ed 40k only applies only to 5th Ed 40k. And no, the most recent BRB and GK FAQs do not note any errata or Q-and-A that address the stacking of multiple castings of the same power. However, the new Chaos Space Marine Codex does in fact have a psychic power with a note stating that it stacks with itself, following the precedent set in the BRB on page 32 ("Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefits of a special rule more than once") and page 68 ("Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative").

Tiberius wrote:You haven't yet provided anything that denies the point I raised:

*Special rules don't stack per page 32, but nowhere in the BRB is it stated that Psychic powers are special rules - only advanced rules. (this is up to you to prove false if you wish for your argument to be valid)

BRB page 32, 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. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength."

BRB page 32, under Compendium of Special Rules:

"Some of the special rules you'll encounter in this section have already been mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you've yet to encounter at all. We're presenting them all in a single section tp make your life easier when trying to track down the effects of a particular special rule."

BRB page 32, under What Special Rules Do I Have:

"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.

"Where this is the case, the rule governing the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear."

BRB page 41, under the special rule Psyker:

"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own sectionstarting on page 66."

Per the above quoted text from the BRB, any psychic power (Hammerhand) that grants a benefit(+1 Strength) is treated as a special rule and therefore is not cumulative without a specific statement in the power's rules that notes otherwise (e.c., Might of Titan's note that it stacks with Hammerhand).

Tiberius wrote:*Psychic powers can be cast multiple times on the same target, only not by the same psyker. (Due to the Psykers power rules concerning targeting on page 67: the only thing mentioned is picking a target, nowhere is it said that a unit is rendered an invalid target because the same power was cast upon them by another psyker. Thus Hammerhand can be cast on a unit more than once if it contains multiple psykers with the power.)

No one is arguing that Hammerhand cannot be casted multiple times on the same unit. However, per the above quoted rules, at no time will the benefits from multiple casting of Hammerhand stack on the same unit.

Tiberius wrote:*Hammerhand applies a characteristic modifier, not a special rule which in turn applies a characteristic modifier (since the target unit simply has +1 strength rather than "units affected by hammerhand receives +1 strength" - see why after the last bullet point). Had the wording been different you would have been correct, but this exact point is what allowed Hammerhand to stack in 5th. This hasn't changed, and thus you can't deny it's true even if it's no longer mentioned in the FAQ. The FAQ only clarified this, it has been true since the codex was released. Semantics matter.

See above.

Tiberius wrote:*Multiple characteristic modifiers stack. (BRB page 2., "Multiple Modifiers")

Per the above quoted rules and the mentioned rule on page 2 of the BRB under Multiple Modifiers, you still only apply a benefit from the same special rule once (unless other wise noted). In their example of applying any multipliers before applying additive modifiers, then subtractive modifiers, followed by replacement values, multiple castings of Hammerhand would still only apply a single modifier of +1 to stength before any doubling per the Hammerhand special rules as noted on page 25 of the GK Codex (adding before double breaks the main rule, making it a special rule, in addition the benefit gained of +1 to Strength). However, if Might of Titan was cast, its +1 to strength is cumulative with Hammerhand's +1 to strength because it is both otherwise noted (pg. 32) and a different power (pg.68).

Tiberius wrote:It all comes down to the wording of the power. Had it been [...] Models affected by Hammerhand have +1 strength [...]", there would have been no point for me to argue since a unit remains affected by a buff only once no matter how many times you cast it, unless otherwise specifically stated. That's semantics, and that's why different powers being cumulative is mentioned (which is a clarification, as it would not need to be mentioned with the rules written as they are). Hammerhand simply sets the strength 1 point higher than normal, skipping the "affected by" and thus removing Hammerhand as an effect from the equation. Hammerhand is the power and thus the cause, the only lasting effect is +1 strength - no buff/special rule is involved.

See above.

Tiberius wrote:This is what I stated in my earlier posts, although now it should be clarified, and your "proof" does not disprove it. Your proof isn't relevant, since I already disproved it. Therefore the burden of proof is yours to bear, and you need to shoot down the above reasoning with proper rules in order for your standpoint to be correct.

Actually, I'm still waiting for you to disprove my proof, which you seem to feel is not relevent. I'd love to see any proof at all that the above rules I have quoted do not draw the comclusion I have stated. Oh, and by the way, simply stating that it is not relevent does not in fact "prove" it is not relevent. You actually do have to form a factual argument.

SJ

Tiberius wrote:[removed nested quote]

Page 67 of the BRB, second paragraph: "A Psyker cannot attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once each turn - even if the manifestation is attempt is not successful." So that ones pretty clear.

Lol, had a bit of a moment there, how did I forget that

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Tiberius wrote:A FAQ from another edition does not affect the current ruleset, of course. But since the FAQ consists of GW's official clarifications rather than rules amendments (that's the Errata), the FAQ remains valid unless rule changes or additions changes the properties. And as you can tell my opinion is that nothing as such has happened since the transition to 6th. The power description hasn't changed, thus it does exactly the same thing it did in 5th. Unless new or changed rules prohibits it, Hammerhand still stacks. The 5th ed. FAQ only clarified this, it stacked even before the FAQ was presented.

The most recent FAQ takes precedence, replacing the last FAQ to be published as shown by the rules updates as well as the date stampon the document. Since we are on GK Codex 6th Ed FAQ 1.3, we can correctly determine that any FAQ published for 5th Ed 40k only applies only to 5th Ed 40k. And no, the most recent BRB and GK FAQs do not note any errata or Q-and-A that address the stacking of multiple castings of the same power. However, the new Chaos Space Marine Codex does in fact have a psychic power with a note stating that it stacks with itself, following the precedent set in the BRB on page 32 ("Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefits of a special rule more than once") and page 68 ("Unless otherwise stated, the effects of multiple different psychic powers are cumulative").

Of course the most recent FAQ takes precedence. But my point is, and I can’t seem to stress this enough, the fifth edition FAQ only CLARIFIED that Hammerhand stacks. It wasn’t a ruling in effect from then and onwards. Hammerhand always stacked from the release of the codex and onwards. This is due to how Hammerhand is worded, as I’ve repeated several times. The clarification still stands unless new rules contradict it, which as I will prove below, is not the case.

As of the psychic power in the CSM codex, I suppose you’re referring to Symphony of Pain or Gift of Contagion, which both have the note? The wording of these two is severely different from Hammerhand. Hammerhand simply states the unit has +1 strength is the psychic test is passed. The two spells I mention, and I suppose you refer to, have the line “whilst this power is in effect” in their description. This means the powers effect is uncountable unless it is stated as cumulative. The power is in effect no matter if it is cast once or thrice. Hammerhand instead is never in effect: models in the targeted unit only receive +1 strength until the end of the assault phase.

Once again, I cannot stress how important the above is to my point. Semantics are extremely important.

jeffersonian000 wrote:BRB page 32, 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. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength."

This means that special rules can boost a model’s strength. It does in no way mean that anything boosting a model’s strength is a special rule. A power fist doubles a model’s strength. That does not make a power fist a special rule, it is a weapon with a stat line. Of course you know this, but I’m only stating this to prove the point I’m making, that the quote is unrelevant.

jeffersonian000 wrote:BRB page 32, under Compendium of Special Rules:

"Some of the special rules you'll encounter in this section have already been mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you've yet to encounter at all. We're presenting them all in a single section tp make your life easier when trying to track down the effects of a particular special rule."

I think you are missing out on something here, something I’ve already stated. Special Rules are only the rules referred to on page 32-43 in the BRB. Page 44 begins the Unit Types section. Psychic Powers have their own section on page 66-69. This is part of the advanced rules section, but not the special rules section. Psychic Powers are not special rules. You are mistaken by thinking that everything beyond page 31 is Special Rules while it is actually referred to as Advanced Rules.

jeffersonian000 wrote:BRB page 32, under What Special Rules Do I Have:

"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.

"Where this is the case, the rule governing the psychic power, scenario or terrain type in question will make this abundantly clear."

A unit might get special rules as an effect of a psychic power. This does in no way mean all psychic power effects are treated as special rules. Unless the effect is referred to as a special rule either in the power, the BRB or the codex (i.e. all units under the effects of The Shrouding “have the Stealth special rule.”) the effect of a psychic power IS NOT A SPECIAL RULE.

jeffersonian000 wrote:BRB page 41, under the special rule Psyker:

"A model with this special rule is a Psyker. Rules for Psykers are covered in full detail in their own sectionstarting on page 66."

Per the above quoted text from the BRB, any psychic power (Hammerhand) that grants a benefit(+1 Strength) is treated as a special rule and therefore is not cumulative without a specific statement in the power's rules that notes otherwise (e.c., Might of Titan's note that it stacks with Hammerhand).

Per the above quote, only the rule Psyker is a special rule. It then states that the rules for psychic powers are covered in a section of their own, not in the special rules section! This means that psychic powers are NOT special rules. Once again, you are mistaking all Advanced Rules for being Special Rules. It is NOT the case.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Tiberius wrote:*Psychic powers can be cast multiple times on the same target, only not by the same psyker. (Due to the Psykers power rules concerning targeting on page 67: the only thing mentioned is picking a target, nowhere is it said that a unit is rendered an invalid target because the same power was cast upon them by another psyker. Thus Hammerhand can be cast on a unit more than once if it contains multiple psykers with the power.)

No one is arguing that Hammerhand cannot be casted multiple times on the same unit. However, per the above quoted rules, at no time will the benefits from multiple casting of Hammerhand stack on the same unit.

I believe I have disproven that the above quotes would have that implication since you misinterpret their connection to psychic powers.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Tiberius wrote:*Hammerhand applies a characteristic modifier, not a special rule which in turn applies a characteristic modifier (since the target unit simply has +1 strength rather than "units affected by hammerhand receives +1 strength" - see why after the last bullet point). Had the wording been different you would have been correct, but this exact point is what allowed Hammerhand to stack in 5th. This hasn't changed, and thus you can't deny it's true even if it's no longer mentioned in the FAQ. The FAQ only clarified this, it has been true since the codex was released. Semantics matter.

See above.

Once again this still stands due to your quotes being irrelevant.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Tiberius wrote:*Multiple characteristic modifiers stack. (BRB page 2., "Multiple Modifiers")

Per the above quoted rules and the mentioned rule on page 2 of the BRB under Multiple Modifiers, you still only apply a benefit from the same special rule once (unless other wise noted). In their example of applying any multipliers before applying additive modifiers, then subtractive modifiers, followed by replacement values, multiple castings of Hammerhand would still only apply a single modifier of +1 to stength before any doubling per the Hammerhand special rules as noted on page 25 of the GK Codex (adding before double breaks the main rule, making it a special rule, in addition the benefit gained of +1 to Strength). However, if Might of Titan was cast, its +1 to strength is cumulative with Hammerhand's +1 to strength because it is both otherwise noted (pg. 32) and a different power (pg.68).

Adding before multipliers does indeed break the basic rules. But nothing is a Special Rule unless it is referred to as a Special Rule, which Hammerhand never is. Without being described as a special rule, something that breaks basic rules is simply part of the advanced rules as described on page 7 of the BRB. All rules and effects in a codex are advanced rules. Only those that are stated as being Special Rules are Special Rules. Hammerhand is never stated as a special rule.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Tiberius wrote:It all comes down to the wording of the power. Had it been [...] Models affected by Hammerhand have +1 strength [...]", there would have been no point for me to argue since a unit remains affected by a buff only once no matter how many times you cast it, unless otherwise specifically stated. That's semantics, and that's why different powers being cumulative is mentioned (which is a clarification, as it would not need to be mentioned with the rules written as they are). Hammerhand simply sets the strength 1 point higher than normal, skipping the "affected by" and thus removing Hammerhand as an effect from the equation. Hammerhand is the power and thus the cause, the only lasting effect is +1 strength - no buff/special rule is involved.

See above.

My above argument means that this is still valid.

jeffersonian000 wrote:

Tiberius wrote:This is what I stated in my earlier posts, although now it should be clarified, and your "proof" does not disprove it. Your proof isn't relevant, since I already disproved it. Therefore the burden of proof is yours to bear, and you need to shoot down the above reasoning with proper rules in order for your standpoint to be correct.

Actually, I'm still waiting for you to disprove my proof, which you seem to feel is not relevent. I'd love to see any proof at all that the above rules I have quoted do not draw the comclusion I have stated. Oh, and by the way, simply stating that it is not relevent does not in fact "prove" it is not relevent. You actually do have to form a factual argument.

SJ

Never have I simply stated that something is relevant without proving it. I have proven all of my statements with the related rules, and disproven yours due to misreading. As far as I see, your arguments stems from not understanding how important the semantics of the Hammerhand psychic power description are and what they actually mean, as well as the fact that you mistake everything beyond page 31 of the BRB to be Special Rules which they are not. This voids most, if not all, of your arguments.

This is, and has always been, my factual argument.

Blatantly won't get a reply from this but...

I've emailed GW's FAQ and errata team asking whether Hammerhand stacks. If I get a response from them before they publish a new FAQ for GK (hopefully with a new clarification for Hammerhand) then I'll post a copy of the email here if that is agreeable?

I've already asked them directly and they told me that they can't find anything in the BRB/FAQ that says Hammerhand does not stack. As far as they understand it, it stacks.

However, I've also experienced that you can get different answers to the same question depending on who actually answers the phone. Because of this, I'm not 100% convinced that the GW people are infallible--until they put it out in the next FAQ of course, at which point it becomes official one way or another.

Hence I've emailed them, doubting I'm going to hear anything any time soon but I'm hoping we get an answer one way or another

Yeah, let's hope

So, judging by your response Tiberius, you have no fact based argument, just an opinion. Fair enough. Too bad that doesn't mean you are correct.

Let me repeat, per RAW Hammerhand does not stack, nor does any ability unless specifically noted otherwise. Until such time as GW updates the GK or BRB FAQ to address all psychic powers stacking, none of them do unless otherwise noted. Thank you for your opinion Tiberius. Too bad you didn't have a factual argument, because I would have really enjoyed stacking Hammerhand again.

SJ

jeffersonian you are blinded by your own assumptions. Tiberius has repeatedly stated that Hammerhand does not confer a Special Rule of any kind to the target unit. Therefore is not bound by the same limitations as Special Rules.

That is FACT! So how on earth can you state he came up with no fact based arguments. He stated the one and only fact that matters.

jay170788 wrote:jeffersonian you are blinded by your own assumptions. Tiberius has repeatedly stated that Hammerhand does not confer a Special Rule of any kind to the target unit. Therefore is not bound by the same limitations as Special Rules.

That is FACT! So how on earth can you state he came up with no fact based arguments. He stated the one and only fact that matters.

Well, let's start off with Hammerhand's +1 to Strength rule not being a special rule. Per the BRB on page 32, any rule that bends or breaks the main rules is considered a special rule, and therefore follows the limitations and restrictions listed for special rules, including the limit that benefits from the same ability do not stack. Further, in the exact same section the BRB notes both modifiers to Strength as an example of a special rule and that psychic powers may confer special rules (as I've quoted above). Hammerhand (psychic power) confers a +1 modifier to Strengh (benefit) follows the example set by the BRB on page 32 (special rule), and as such, the benefit (+1 to Strength) is not cumulative with multiple uses of the same ability (Hammerhand).

Where is Tiberius's proof that this is incorrect? In the 5th Ed FAQ? As I've point out, a 5th edition FAQ has absolutely zero relation to the 6th edition game once a 6th edition FAQ has been released. And as there have been 2 updates so far to the 6th ed GK FAQ (we are on version 1.3 at the moment), no ruling presented in an older GK FAQ has any weight on how abilities work in 6th. Please prove otherwise.

Now plese, please, please, state an actual fact that supports Hammerhand stacking. If you can state a current 6th edition 40,000 rule or rules that allows a modifier from multiple uses of the same ability to stack, I will gladely concede the point. Statements like the one I quoted in this post are not factual until such time as you cite an actual rule or rules (like have in previous posts) to support your claim.

Let me be clearer on this point if I can. You need to prove than Hammerhand has been ruled by GW to be cumulative. The BRB lists psychic powers, to which Hammerhand is one of, to confer special rules on models. In addition, the BRB lists modifiers to a model's Characteristics Profile (ie, Stat-line) to be special rules. If you want to prove otherwise, you need to find an offically printed, up to date GW ruling that changes how the the rules I've noted above apply to powers such as Hammerhand.

SJ

"Psychic powers may confer special rules" and "psychic powers confer special rules" are two completely different effects. Tiberius's logic is completely infallible. This was agreed upon by the GW employee not being able to find any ruling which disallows the stacking of hammerhand. Jeffersonian I'm afraid your argument falls down in several places logically speaking.

SB

jeffersonian000 wrote:

jay170788 wrote:jeffersonian you are blinded by your own assumptions. Tiberius has repeatedly stated that Hammerhand does not confer a Special Rule of any kind to the target unit. Therefore is not bound by the same limitations as Special Rules.

That is FACT! So how on earth can you state he came up with no fact based arguments. He stated the one and only fact that matters.

Well, let's start off with Hammerhand's +1 to Strength rule not being a special rule. Per the BRB on page 32, any rule that bends or breaks the main rules is considered a special rule, and therefore follows the limitations and restrictions listed for special rules, including the limit that benefits from the same ability do not stack. Further, in the exact same section the BRB notes both modifiers to Strength as an example of a special rule and that psychic powers may confer special rules (as I've quoted above). Hammerhand (psychic power) confers a +1 modifier to Strengh (benefit) follows the example set by the BRB on page 32 (special rule), and as such, the benefit (+1 to Strength) is not cumulative with multiple uses of the same ability (Hammerhand).

Where is Tiberius's proof that this is incorrect? In the 5th Ed FAQ? As I've point out, a 5th edition FAQ has absolutely zero relation to the 6th edition game once a 6th edition FAQ has been released. And as there have been 2 updates so far to the 6th ed GK FAQ (we are on version 1.3 at the moment), no ruling presented in an older GK FAQ has any weight on how abilities work in 6th. Please prove otherwise.

Now plese, please, please, state an actual fact that supports Hammerhand stacking. If you can state a current 6th edition 40,000 rule or rules that allows a modifier from multiple uses of the same ability to stack, I will gladely concede the point. Statements like the one I quoted in this post are not factual until such time as you cite an actual rule or rules (like have in previous posts) to support your claim.

Let me be clearer on this point if I can. You need to prove than Hammerhand has been ruled by GW to be cumulative. The BRB lists psychic powers, to which Hammerhand is one of, to confer special rules on models. In addition, the BRB lists modifiers to a model's Characteristics Profile (ie, Stat-line) to be special rules. If you want to prove otherwise, you need to find an offically printed, up to date GW ruling that changes how the the rules I've noted above apply to powers such as Hammerhand.

SJ

First of all, I want to excuse myself for using the fifth ed. FAQ. as an argument in this debate. Due to not playing during fifth, and thus not seeing the FAQ, I was tricked to believe the FAQ point concerned Hammerhand specifically (it was explained to me that way without being quoted). I have now seen the actual ruling, which was that all psychic powers stacked unless otherwise told. Thus, the old FAQ is not relevant to this edition at all in the manner I thought (since I was under the impression that it said Hammerhand stacked).

Thankfully, I only mentioned the FAQ to support my opinion. My proof comes from my other arguments. And I believe we're down to the phrase on page 32. of the BRB as your main argument? Well, here's the fun fact about that one: RAW, we don't have a definition of "main game rules". The only time that term is mentioned in the BRB is in that very sentence. While it can be argued that what's intended is the other rules in the BRB, RAI has never been what I'm arguing about. Without defining what the main rules are, we are simply left with a sentence that have no bearing on anything since nothing excludes anything in the ruleset from the "main game rules". This goes for everything in the BRB as well as the codexes. With that sentence thus not affecting what is considered a special rule or not, we are once again left at the original definition of a special rule: those rules that are stated as being special rules. Hammerhand, nor psychic powers in general, are not stated as special rules. Hammerhands effect is not a special rule, and so stacks according to my previous arguments.

EDIT - I might add that after having come to an understanding of what the fifth FAQ actully told of, I am inclined to believe that RAI Hammerhand isn't supposed to stack in 6th. RAW however, it still does.

So, your argument is that since the rules don't work, my argument is voided? Interesting direction for your logic chain to follow, especially if you want to use those non-working rules to support a RAW argument.

However, Special rules are defined on page 32 as any ability from a creature or weapon the bends or break the main rules. By main rules, we can assume all the rules previous to page 32 are in fact the "main rules" of the book. Further, as page 32 is the first page of the "Special Rules" section, we can assume all the rules in the "Special Rules" section cover ... special rules.

Let’s look at a different example: Rad Grenades. Rad Grenades reduce the toughness of an enemy unit being assault by 1, which falls under the category of a modifier per page 2 of the BRB. It also falls under the category of a special rule due to the fact that a main rule (Characteristic Profile) is being changed (bent). This means that multiple units with Rad Grenades charging the same enemy unit do not confer multiple -1 penalties to that enemy unit, as nowhere in the description of Rad Grenades is permission give to stack the modifier. Low and behold, GW supports this in the current series of FAQs.

Back to the question on whether or not psychic powers confer special rules. We know that per page 32, any benefit that bends or breaks that rules is only cumulative when given specific permission. Many psychic powers (but not all) confer a rule that changes how the general rules function within the context of that power. Guess what? That's the very definition of a "Special Rule". For the most part, Psychic Shooting powers (Witchfire) do not confer any special rules, yet some do. Smite versus Life Leech are good examples of this. Smite is for all intents and purposes a range weapon, yet Life Leech is a range weapon that confers the ability to regain a lost wound upon dealing a wound to the target (i.e., special rule).

Let’s look again at Hammerhand. Hammerhand confers two special rules upon a successful casting: +1 strength modifier to all models in the unit, and the ability to apply that modifier before doubling. What is missing from the Hammerhand ability description? Permission to stack.

Let’s look at a similar power, Might of Titan. Might of Titan confers several special rules in the form of a +1 to strength for all models in the unit, improved armor penetration versus vehicles, and the ability to stack with Hammerhand. Why is this important? Because even though Might is a different power from Hammerhand and therefore has specific permission from the BRB to stack, the ability within the power itself implies that you add the bonus from Might to Hammerhand before doubling. Might of Titan is obviously a complex psychic power filled with a complex set of special rules that are conferred upon a successful casting.

So no, saying that Tiberius's opinion that Hammerhand stack per RAW does not in fact prove that RAW supports Hammerhand stacking. Also, if your argument that "main rules" is not defined, I challenge you to find any words or phrases in the current rule set that are defined differently than their common English use. That is to say, please try again.

SJ

I think the argument basically comes down to "are stat modifiers special rules". Seeing as how this is the point Jeffersonian seems to be arguing and Tiberius seems to be arguing against.

I am personally inclined to think that special rules are only those stated within the "special rules" section, and therefore given a specific name, such as "rending", "fleet" etc.

I'm a bit jet lagged ATM and its 3 or 4 in the morning ish, got to be up in 2 hours for my flight so sorry if this is not very coherent, I'm very tired.

SB

SmokinBrown wrote:I think the argument basically comes down to "are stat modifiers special rules". Seeing as how this is the point Jeffersonian seems to be arguing and Tiberius seems to be arguing against.

I am personally inclined to think that special rules are only those stated within the "special rules" section, and therefore given a specific name, such as "rending", "fleet" etc.

+1 this is the point as RAW, that section is specifically labelled Special Rules and so those are the the only special rules unless another rule within a codex is labelled as such.

jeffersonian000 wrote:So, your argument is that since the rules don't work, my argument is voided? Interesting direction for your logic chain to follow, especially if you want to use those non-working rules to support a RAW argument.

I have never claimed the rules don't work. I do, however, claim that the phrase you refer to have no bearing upon the rules. It merely serves as a description of the concept of Special Rules, it does not define what actually counts as such.

jeffersonian000 wrote:However, Special rules are defined on page 32 as any ability from a creature or weapon the bends or break the main rules. By main rules, we can assume all the rules previous to page 32 are in fact the "main rules" of the book. Further, as page 32 is the first page of the "Special Rules" section, we can assume all the rules in the "Special Rules" section cover ... special rules.

Emphasis mine. This is where you loose grip of the actual RAW debate. You assume. There is no mention of what is counted as the "main game rules" anywhere in the BRB. We have a definition of Basic Rules (everything in the rulebook on page 1-31) and Advanced Rules (Page 32 and onwards). We also know that Special Rules are listed on page 32-43. We know nothing of what the "main game rules" are composed of. We cannot assume anything if we're going by RAW. And without any "main game rules" to bend or break, that sentence serves no rule-defining purpose. It in no way defines that everything not following the BRB is special rules, due to the wording. This is not an opinion of mine. This is GW:s choice of wording messing things up.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Let’s look at a different example: Rad Grenades. Rad Grenades reduce the toughness of an enemy unit being assault by 1, which falls under the category of a modifier per page 2 of the BRB. It also falls under the category of a special rule due to the fact that a main rule (Characteristic Profile) is being changed (bent). This means that multiple units with Rad Grenades charging the same enemy unit do not confer multiple -1 penalties to that enemy unit, as nowhere in the description of Rad Grenades is permission give to stack the modifier. Low and behold, GW supports this in the current series of FAQs.

The ruling on Rad Grenades does not affect Hammerhand. Do once again note that as I said in my last post, I doubt Hammerhand is intended to stack in this edition. But until they FAQ it any other way, it does.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Back to the question on whether or not psychic powers confer special rules. We know that per page 32, any benefit that bends or breaks that rules is only cumulative when given specific permission. Many psychic powers (but not all) confer a rule that changes how the general rules function within the context of that power. Guess what? That's the very definition of a "Special Rule". For the most part, Psychic Shooting powers (Witchfire) do not confer any special rules, yet some do. Smite versus Life Leech are good examples of this. Smite is for all intents and purposes a range weapon, yet Life Leech is a range weapon that confers the ability to regain a lost wound upon dealing a wound to the target (i.e., special rule).

Nope, the very definition of a "Special Rule" is those rules which are stated as being "Special Rules" or breaks the undefined and thus unbreakable "main game rules". Also, are you arguing that the whole psychic power doesn't become a special rule but rather that only the part that breaks/bends the rules is a special rule? Great, because Characteristic modifiers aren't Special Rules. They're part of the basic ruleset. That would mean that according to your interpretation, the strength bonus can be applied several times, but only once before multipliers.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Let’s look again at Hammerhand. Hammerhand confers two special rules upon a successful casting: +1 strength modifier to all models in the unit, and the ability to apply that modifier before doubling. What is missing from the Hammerhand ability description? Permission to stack.

Characteristic modifiers are not special rules, they are part of the basic ruleset. And the modification to application rules is not a special rule due to the reasons I've stated above: it is not defined as one.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Let’s look at a similar power, Might of Titan. Might of Titan confers several special rules in the form of a +1 to strength for all models in the unit, improved armor penetration versus vehicles, and the ability to stack with Hammerhand. Why is this important? Because even though Might is a different power from Hammerhand and therefore has specific permission from the BRB to stack, the ability within the power itself implies that you add the bonus from Might to Hammerhand before doubling. Might of Titan is obviously a complex psychic power filled with a complex set of special rules that are conferred upon a successful casting.

Might does in no way state that its strength bonus is added before multipliers though. But yes, Might of Titan is indeed complex. RAW however, its effects are once again not special rules. RAW only the effects of psychic powers that are stated as being "Special Rules" are special rules.

jeffersonian000 wrote:So no, saying that Tiberius's opinion that Hammerhand stack per RAW does not in fact prove that RAW supports Hammerhand stacking. Also, if your argument that "main rules" is not defined, I challenge you to find any words or phrases in the current rule set that are defined differently than their common English use. That is to say, please try again.

SJ

It's not my opinion. It's GW:s inability to properly word their rules according to their intents. All that which I have stated is within the boundaries of the rules as provided in the GK codex and the BRB. You are assuming that "main game rules" refers to a given section of the rules. That section is never given. The phrase refers to nothing. You cannot break or bend nothing. The term, as written, is nullified by itself when it comes to affecting the rules. This is not my opinion. This is correct interpretation and use of semantics applied to the written material GW has provided us with. It is not subjective. It's objective.

Pg. 32, BRB, What Special Rules do I Have?

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a model's Attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

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

When this is the case, {b]the rule that governs the psychic power[/b], scenario or terrain typein question will make this abundantly clear.

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have there own unique aqbilities, which are laid out in thier codex.

While it is neat that some folks may limit "special rules" to the USRs listed in the Special Rules section of the BRB, the Special Rules section tells us that the USRs listed in the section are only commonly use ones and not the sum total of all Special Rules in the game. Further more, in the 2nd paragraph the same page, we are informed what actually defines a special rule:

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability the breaks or bends one of the main rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength.

We see here that a boost to a model's strength that is granted by an ability is represented by a special rule.

Pg. 25, GK Codex, Hammerhand

This power is used during the Assault phase in either player's turn, after assault moves have been made, but before any blows have been struck. If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase. Note that this Strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for Nemesis Daemon hammers and so forth.

Your argument is that the rules in the Hammerhand entry are not "special rules", yet per the rules as written in the Special Rules section, any ability that bends or breaks the rules including modifiers to character's stats are considered special rules, and therefore follow all of the same restrictions as any other special rule. The exact same section that states the psychic powers may confer special rules. The exact same section that states that not all special rules are listed in the BRB, that many more special rules are listed in Codexes as unique rules for units within those codexes.

Your argument that per RAW, "only the effects of psychic powers that are stated as being "Special Rules" are special rules," is false due the very fact that per RAW, any ability the changes how the rules work is by definition a Special Rule!

As to the point on characteristic modifiers not being special rules, the only basic rules we have on characteristic modifiers is how to apply them. Per the Special Rules section of the BRB, any modifier to a characteristic is considered a special rule; its written right there on pg. 32!

Yes, until such time as an actual logical argument is presented based on facts from officially printed sources that are current to this edition, your statement that Hammerhand stacks is an opinion.

SJ

dear god, kiss each other allready...

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pg. 32, BRB, What Special Rules do I Have?

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its codex. That said, a model's Attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.

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

When this is the case, {b]the rule that governs the psychic power[/b], scenario or terrain typein question will make this abundantly clear.

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troops have there own unique aqbilities, which are laid out in thier codex.

While it is neat that some folks may limit "special rules" to the USRs listed in the Special Rules section of the BRB, the Special Rules section tells us that the USRs listed in the section are only commonly use ones and not the sum total of all Special Rules in the game.

I do not limit Special Rules to those that are stated under the USR section of the BRB. They are limited to those rules which are defined as such in the BRB, codexes (in specific unit entries or under general special rules of the codex. i.e. see the Grey Knights Special Rules section of our codex) or other official sources.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Further more, in the 2nd paragraph the same page, we are informed what actually defines a special rule:

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability the breaks or bends one of the main rules, it is represented by a special rule. A special rule might improve a model's chances of causing damage by granting it poisoned weapons or a boost to its strength.

We see here that a boost to a model's strength that is granted by an ability is represented by a special rule.

All we see here is that Special Rules can grant boosts to strength. That sentence does not translate into all strength boosts being special rules. And you seem to be missing out on the point that the meaning of that sentence is special rules can grant strength modifiers, rather than strength modifiers being special rules. An example is Furious Charge. It grants a characteristic modifier, which is part of the basic ruleset and not a special rule of its own.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Pg. 25, GK Codex, Hammerhand

This power is used during the Assault phase in either player's turn, after assault moves have been made, but before any blows have been struck. If the Psychic test is passed, all models in the unit (including independent characters) have +1 Strength until the end of the Assault phase. Note that this Strength bonus is applied before any other modifiers, such as for Nemesis Daemon hammers and so forth.

Your argument is that the rules in the Hammerhand entry are not "special rules", yet per the rules as written in the Special Rules section, any ability that bends or breaks the rules including modifiers to character's stats are considered special rules, and therefore follow all of the same restrictions as any other special rule.

Characteristic modifiers are written into the basic rules. They are not, in any way, Special Rules of their own. You haven't provided a single excerpt from the rules that defines them as such. Stat lines are not stated as being static, and modifiers are included on the first page of the rules. IT IS THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE BASIC RULESET. Thus, Characteristic modifiers are basic rules, not Special Rules. This also goes for the bonus from hammerhand, which has an exception to the modifying sequence written into it. That part is an advanced rule. It is still not a special rule.

Besides, I have stated to you several times that due to GW:s sloppy choice of words, the sentence you are constantly referring to lacks any bearing in this debate. We still need to define what rules are included or excluded in the "main game rules", and this is never done in the Warhammer 40k ruleset. We need that detail to actually use your favored sentence as a rule, since RAW we cannot assume anything when debating rules. Had there been a section under the name of "main game rules" or simply "main rules", I would have conceded by this point. But there is not, which is why the facts (read: not opinions) I have stated are correct.

jeffersonian000 wrote:The exact same section that states the psychic powers may confer special rules. The exact same section that states that not all special rules are listed in the BRB, that many more special rules are listed in Codexes as unique rules for units within those codexes.

There are several psychic powers granting special rules. As example we have our own The Shrouding, or why not the biomancy powers Iron Arm, Endurance and Warp Speed. You might notice that these psychic powers actually mention that they apply a special rule in their effect. And if you view unit entries, you will notice that they have a category named SPECIAL RULES under which all the rules that counts as Special Rules are mentioned. So of course psychic powers can apply special rules, and not all are contained within the BRB. But that does not make every effect of psychic powers a special rule.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Your argument that per RAW, "only the effects of psychic powers that are stated as being "Special Rules" are special rules," is false due the very fact that per RAW, any ability the changes how the rules work is by definition a Special Rule!

No, it is true as I have shown several times. You need to assume things for your interpretation to be correct. Mine only uses the wording of the official written material applied in an objective manner. I am applying proper semantics, you are not.

jeffersonian000 wrote:As to the point on characteristic modifiers not being special rules, the only basic rules we have on characteristic modifiers is how to apply them. Per the Special Rules section of the BRB, any modifier to a characteristic is considered a special rule; its written right there on pg. 32!

Not true. The basic rule Modifiers state the following:

Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively by adding to it (+ 1 , +2, etc.), multiplying it (x2, x3, etc.) or even setting its value (1, 8, etc.). Attacks and Wounds are the only characteristics that can be raised above 10. No characteristic can be modified below 0.

This explains exactly what characteristic modifiers can do, and it's a basic rule. Oh, and there's no need pointing out that the rule says "wargear or special rules can modify a model's characteristics". This is a basic rule, psychic powers are advanced rules, hence it is overridden and psychic powers can apply modifiers as well. All according to RAW.

jeffersonian000 wrote:Yes, until such time as an actual logical argument is presented based on facts from officially printed sources that are current to this edition, your statement that Hammerhand stacks is an opinion.

SJ

All my facts (with the exception of my misunderstanding of the fifth FAQ entry, which I already retracted as an argument) are taken directly from the official written sources of rules for Warhammer 40K in the exact words used by Games Workshop to define these rules. I have not assumed anything of that which my arguments are based upon (bar the now retracted FAQ argument), and you are the one coming with opinions as you are assuming things which are not stated in the rules themselves. My statement is not an opinion, yours is.

You have assumed one point, that we have permission to stack the same modifier from multiple uses of the same ability. Per the BRB, benefits from the same ability are not cumulative unless otherwise specified. Further, the BRB makes a point of noting that only benefits from different psychic powers are cumulative.

Please show where in the BRB or the GK Codex permission is given for benefits from multiple castings of the same power to be cumultative.

SJ

Jeffersonian, Tiberius has made no assumptions throughout his argument and always quoted rules exactly as they appear in their respective sources, exercising particular care with phrases such as "can/may apply" and "does/will apply", the former of which is situational and the latter of which is definite. RAW is undeniably that hammerhand stacks.

SB

Souba wrote:dear god, kiss each other allready...

TLDR, but anyway what's the conclusion? Everybody hates GKs and Tau are now everybody's new best friend?