While the rest of the blogosphere seems to be stuck dreaming in a post-apocalyptic wonderland after The Day, during which blogger failed, those of us using Word Press will have to carry on. Having organized my things at NORAD, it’s time to sit down and pump out another FNIF. Since the Grey Knights have been out for a few months now and I haven’t really had anything more profound than ‘god damn I hate that fucking space monkey’ to say, I think it’s high time we visited this new codex.
From Dakka Dakka’s sometimes entertaining You Make Da Call, today we’ll be dealing with the same psichic power twice?, a thread that I can guarantee you is not as lacking in spelling as the title would lead you to believe. Alas, we must soldier on, regardless. This will be a hard fought battle, no doubt, as well. I think I even change my opinion on the rule about halfway through, so good luck determining if anybody is right, or if it even matters.
As always, none of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement. In order to create a more compelling narrative structure, and because it really seems to piss off people involved in the fight, post order may be changed and portions of the thread deemed boring will be edited out. My own commentary will be snowmobiled in in red text. Don’t forget to vote in the poll at the end of the fight.
Punkow- So… I was wondering… Can Draigo cast “psichic communion” twice (psiker mastery 2)to get a +2/-2 to reserves? ~well, given that that isn’t a power, then I’m gonna go with no in the BRB it is said that a psyker cannot use the same psichic ~strike 3, you’re out shooting attack twice but the rule seems to be restricted to shooting powers…
Am I correct? Am I missing something? Maybe some faq I’m not aware of clarified the thing?
Clear citations are well accepted! ~I am clearly about to issue you a citation from international grammar police for failure to spell psychic right, even once. In all seriousness, though, check the fucking codex, page 23, where is specifically, clearly states this power stacks. Now run, before people start talking about hammerhand for some reason.
daedalus-templarius- I don’t think it can stack, unlike hammerhand, which can. ~hmm, I’m going to refer you back to the codex that nobody seems to actually have read. I’ll admit, it’s not the most exciting book I’ve seen personally, but you may want a copy, if you’re planning on knowing how the army works.
Psychic communion stats ~on second thought, this article my, in fact, be riddled with spelling problems and typos, contrary to my prior statements on the matter it can stack.
Yes, with mastery 2 you CAN cast communion twice, and yes it will stack. The only restriction on casting powers twice is, as you say, PSA. ~so I was confused for a second here, too, but I’ve come to find out that this stands for psychic shooting attack and not public service announcement, like I thought, so like ‘the more you know….’ or whatever
omerakk- If they both stack, why do they take the time to say “this power stacks with itself” with pys communion, but not with hammerhand? ~because GW keeps fucking up stacking of reserve modifiers and has yet to develop a cogent stance on the subject Seems silly to write that extra sentence in if all powers passively stacked with themselves ~admittedly
Why did they take the time in the Bike rules to tell you the modified toughness has no bearing on ID, when the ID rules perfectly cover this? ~1 word: sloppy writing. ~Speaking of sloppy writing, that was actually 2 words. ~Fuck you dethtron!
So if that works, I guess might of titan is the best ability ever. ~pretty much 2 upgraded libbys could give any basic unit on the field strength 10 and up to 7d6 penetration >< ~lol, penetration 3====> (_0_)
The way it is worded explicitly allows stacking. It adds 1 to S, then the next casting adds one to S’ – which is S+1.
And agreed. MoT is all you need… ~so in actuality, that fact that Might of Titan and Hammerhand are similar and Might specifically says it stacks with Hammerhand, I’m thinking that the writers may have intended for multiple MoT and HH not to stack… just sayin’
once you are str7(3 castings of hammerhand/Might of Titan) you will be wounding most things on 2s ~except pretty much every MC, rumored Necrons from the future (rather than from the past as the fluff might suggest), Dread Knights from the very codex we’re talking about here, etc.. and 3d6 Penetration with Str7 should be more then enough to penetrate anything. ~could not suppress a childish giggle just then. A titter, if you will. Shit, just did it again
and it would be easier and less risky to get a Deamonhamer if you need Str10 in CC. ~bah, no imagination here. Doing shit the easy way. Feh!
and 2 Libbies with the capacity to do this would be stupid expensive. damn right they better be able to do this for costing upwards of 400+ points for the 2 of them
And the fact that 1 unupgraded libby can make a basic gk troop strength 6 with 3d6 pen is just silly. ~yeah, so to the people from last week’s FNIF, quick crying about your loss of S6 attacks. They’re still there Sure, it doesn’t replace hammers, but its still ridiculous. And the fact that it could also make a strength 10 hammer hit with more than 1 d6 is just overkill lol
punkow- uuuh…. A topic about the possibility of casting the same power twice suddenly became ANOTHER topic about multiple uses of hammerhand stacking or not… ~you were expecting a different outcome?
I feel the Modquisition approaching… ~guess we can put the rumor that nobody suspects the modquisition to rest then, eh?
Grey Templar- it is the RAW untill an FAQ says otherwise. ~probably a good idea to anticipate the FAQ here, to avoid costly mistakes that I may have made like buying a second Hive Tyrant for extra Hive Commander before the FAQ came out… fucking FAQ!
Entry for Hammerhand stacking with MoT is simple redundancy.
Stavkat- You forgot the “in my opinion” part. You must admit, what you call “redundancy” is actually slight evidence that Hammerhand (or anything else silent on the matter) does not stack in the GK codex. GW may be sloppy, but when they specifically mention Might of Titan stacking with Hammerhand, Psychic Commiunion stacking with itself, but not Hammerhand stacking with itself, the weight of the evidence certainly leans in one direction. To argue the “evidence” carries no weight whatsoever is a bit much. ~I think you and I have the psychic power “predict incoming faq changes” Asserting GW is never consistent in this codex, that these mentions are totally random, is IMHO pretty silly. ~and technically correct, sadly…
nosferatu1001- The evidence is, currently, as far as the RULES are concerned – simple redundancy. Nothing more ~grrr, curse you and your technical correctness, I still think that time will back up Stavkat and my new psychic powers.
Stavkat- Wow, assertions work awesome. Same with completely ignoring what was said. ~see, if you keep reading things get heated- this wasn’t a total waste of your time after all. Don’t we all feel better now?
Why bother commenting at all if all you are going to do is repeat an already made assertion? ~listen, I know this is your first day going this deep in the forum mines, but I think your canary died a long while back- to be expecting anything less than what has just happened is silly.
Stavkat- I don’t need evidence that you didn’t make an assertion. ~well you certainly don’t not need it You made one in a one line post, that added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Opinions are great ~much like assholes, or so the saying goes…, but everybody has them – no need to chime in with, at best, nothing useful whatsoever, and at worst, a counter productive post which antagonizes others. ~well I’m glad the person who really stepped up the level of antagonism here is conscious of others being antagonistic I mean really, is it that hard to figure out?
Unit1126PLL- Evidence to the Contrary isn’t required. This is a permissive rule-set. Evidence in the affirmation is required. ~I could probably find like 100 examples directly refuting your assertion, but am feeling lazy, so won’t.
It doesn’t say you can stack them, so you can’t. ~you know, as much as I want to not even care any more at this point, it brings up a very important point: you can use psychic powers more than once per the rules, but it is never stated anywhere (other than in specific powers like psychic communion) that their effects are cumulative.
It stacks because the language LETS it stack, so it does. You need to show it doesnt. ~Unit kind of just did, in a fashion
Stavkat – it isnt an assertion; we have shown how in rules it stacks ~or so you thought- before Unit just blew the lid off the whole case inadvertently., therfore it is simple redundancy. It is not evidence of not stacking. ~do you readers really need me to make fun of yet another double negative? what’s that? you don’t not need it.
Stavkat-1) If the above is true, I still see NO VALUE whatsoever in Grey’s post, as it does not refer to this prior showing you mention, nor does it even pretend to acknowledge any comments made in the preceding post. Imagine if I just replied to you with “Wrong.” What good would that do? None. ~you are new to this whole forum thing, aren’t you?
Jaon- YES! A single model MAY cast psychic communion twice , giving you 2-/2+ to reserves ~can’t dispute that since the rules state it’s allowed, …or 1+1-…if you just felt like rolling dice…. ~that’s how I’m going to do it
It is not a shooting attack. So you can cast it twice. ~true Much like hammerhand, which can be cast twice, regardless of the rules debate going on here. ~at the risk of prompting more petty semantic debates, I think the issue isn’t whether it can be cast twice, it can per the rules, but whether its effects are cumulative/stackable, which is as yet undefined by the rules, pointing to a big fat no on that one.
As I have decided since the last big battle for GK rules (2+A-pro Now and Forever!) , Nosferatu and Grey Templar are the new Gwar! ~okay first off, what the fuck happened to Gwar! He’s like disappeared forever and that makes finding FNIFs that much harder for me. Second, just because you’re a mod, doesn’t mean you get to make appointments on behalf of the international convocation of rules lawyers for rules, and as such, I completely agree with their rules argument on this. Raw states it adds one to strength when cast. It does, and until the FAQ (that frankly I am dying for, no matter how much it nerfbats my Codex’s short-lived greatness) ~well despite what I’ve said about impending FAQ changes, this is a marine codex, after all, so I think the NERFbat will be using extra light foam it will remain that way.
Rules as intended is more clear… and I think I know what were going to be seeing in the FAQ. Might of Titan is near useless if hammerhand actually does stack, the extra D6 only effecting heavy vehicles, even medium ones aren’t safe from mass str 7 attacks. If we see the rise of 2+A and Hammerhand stacking in the FAQ, all hell will break lose when I have my str 7 ini 10 4 attacks base terminators roflstomping every. Single. Enemy. Unit. ~the complexity and convolutedness of the alignment of the stars necessary to pull that kind of combo off is pretty useless, when you look at the fact that you’re putting all your eggs in one basket, a basket that can be easily ignored, bogged down, etc.
But rules as intended counts for naught but what we must expect from the FAQ to come. We were instructed by The Immortal God Emperor, via his Holy Tome, and we shall do its bidding, to the very letter. We shall debate every word into obscurity and superstition. After all, we are the Imperium ~hey, your doctor’s on the line, says he can fill your meds for you. I think you need to take them double quick to bring you back out of your fantasy world.
Stavkat- Oh dear. Is this really hard to understand? Within this single codex we have other rules whose language potentially “allows” stacking yet most of them specifically have sentences declaring that stacking is possible. GW may be sloppy, but you are arguing that pattern here is not one, but instead just extreme sloppiness, to the point that multiple mentions of allowing stacking is no evidence whatsoever that these sentences are needed for stacking. ~seriously, somebody else read this like 10 times and see if you can explain it to me.
Evidence of redundancy is NOT EVIDENCE OF NECESSITY
I refer you to the bike rules. Will you now claim that, unless you are told a modifier does not affect ID, that it does?
THe rules are such that Hhand stacks.~yeah, still waiting for proof of that. The rules are such that you can use it twice Provide *actual* evidence to the contrary. ~just did, thanks for playing.
Who wins FNIF: Round 2.11?
Total Voters: 81