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.

As a Tyranid player I can run a game with 7-10 psykers pretty easily. Does the enfeeble spell stack with itself? Some games I have rolled 4 or more enfeebles and was wondering if I could use it to take out a deathstar. If they stack, 4 enfeebles could take out a paladin squad.

It does stack, the rules for maledictions however clearly state they cannot reduce a stat below 1 unless specified otherwise.

They stack, but since the power doesn't say you can, you can't reduce a stat below 1.

"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

 Melchiour wrote:
As a Tyranid player I can run a game with 7-10 psykers pretty easily. Does the enfeeble spell stack with itself? Some games I have rolled 4 or more enfeebles and was wondering if I could use it to take out a deathstar. If they stack, 4 enfeebles could take out a paladin squad.

Even if they aren't able to reduced a models stat below one, at toughness one they will suffer instant death from strength two. Hordes of gaunts for the win!

Pyrian wrote:
"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

No, "different" in this case means different castings. It does not preclude multiple castings of the same power.

 juraigamer wrote:
They stack, but since the power doesn't say you can, you can't reduce a stat below 1.

Does it have to say that it can lower it to 0 to do so? I mean getting 4 castings on a unit is going to be somewhat hard in general so is it a big risk?

It must say that it can lower to zero, or above 10 for that matter. Pg 68

Yes, it has to say so, the rulebook states that unless specified, you can't lower a stat below 0 or above 10.

Ok, I was just wondering was that a psyker thing or a general restriction.

Pyrian wrote:
"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, "different" in this case means different castings. It does not preclude multiple castings of the same power.

I disagree. It means a different power, not merely a different casting of the same power. In your interpretation, the "different" is a meaningless nonsense word (it would have to read "multiple" or be left out altogether), so your interpretation doesn't work, semantically. It can only mean a different power.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Ok, I was just wondering was that a psyker thing or a general restriction.

General restriction on the Maledictions.

Pyrian wrote:
"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

Which is a logical fallacy. A => B does not mean !B => !A

Well. when i played against a guy at my lgs he didn't let me stack them. what do i tell him to convince him i can play it this way, and that i am breaking no rules? Also, he said you can't use hammerhand twice for grey knights and i know for sure you can. Maybe that can be part of the argument. I just want to play it this way without having him think i'm cheating. Any help?

Well the GK FAQ explicitly lets HH stack. wave that in his face.

And even if Blessings don't stack, HH isn't a Blessing. Its just HH.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

Which is a logical fallacy.

Logic? This is semantics. I'm not merely inferring it, it's clearly implied.

that is what he said. he said it was implied. but i do not see it that way at all. There is no rule. so you're saying there is a hole and no answer?

I hate feeling like i'm getting worked over when i play 40k and I am just looking for advice on letting my oponet know that i can stack them even when he says i can't.

 TheContortionist wrote:
he said it was implied. but i do not see it that way at all.

Well, it is implied, and it's not just some matter of subjective opinion where you can feel entitled to have your own personal preferences of how to read it. If they're going to actually specify that maledictions that are the same, are not subject to the rule that maledictions stack, that's not a mild inferrence of something unclear or unspecified, logic games notwithstanding.

Premise 1: Each casting grants permission to lower the stat by 1.
Premise 2: There is no prohibition on them stacking.
Conclusion: They can stack.

Hammerhand is a useful precedent, and has a FAQ saying yep, that's what they meant.

he says that be because it says, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative." and because they are the same and not different, they wouldn't stack. but that just makes no sense to me.

It just sounds like he is trying to bend the rules in his favor and make me miss out on my plays.

I do not see it implied that i would not be able to do it. In fact i see it as the opposite, a rule to make it clear that i can use the same ability twice on the same unit, but because of poor wording just causes tons of confusion.

Right, he's falling into a classic logical fallacy. Just because a = b does not mean "not a" = "not b".

Hammerhand clearly shows that the same psychic power cast multiple times can indeed stack. In light of that, the reminder about stacking in the BRB psychic rules does indeed seem more likely to be an allowance for stacking multiple castings.

 TheContortionist wrote:
he says that be because it says, "bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative." and because they are the same and not different, they wouldn't stack. but that just makes no sense to me.

It just sounds like he is trying to bend the rules in his favor and make me miss out on my plays.

I do not see it implied that i would not be able to do it. In fact i see it as the opposite, a rule to make it clear that i can use the same ability twice on the same unit, but because of poor wording just causes tons of confusion.

Print out the GW FAQ for Hammerhand, show him he's horrendously wrong and than enfeeble him to your hearts content.

...and then curse as he passes his damn Deny the Witch rolls on a 5+.

I believe that the same power cast on the same unit from different sources *does not* stack;

My evidence? Gift of Contagion (CSM Nurgle power). It is a malediction, and it specifically states that the effects of multiple Gifts of Contagion are cumulative.

As such, it sounds a heck of a lot like unless specifically stated that they are cumulative, the same power (regardless of the casting units) do not stack. Otherwise why make Gift specific?

That is not evidence. GW often puts in redundant wording in their rules.

 djdarknoise wrote:
I believe that the same power cast on the same unit from different sources *does not* stack;

My evidence? Gift of Contagion (CSM Nurgle power). It is a malediction, and it specifically states that the effects of multiple Gifts of Contagion are cumulative.

As such, it sounds a heck of a lot like unless specifically stated that they are cumulative, the same power (regardless of the casting units) do not stack. Otherwise why make Gift specific?

Right it specifically states it does not stack.

Pyrian wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

Which is a logical fallacy.

Logic? This is semantics. I'm not merely inferring it, it's clearly implied.

No, you are falling into a classic excluded middle fallacy, and your argument is therefore flawed.

A implies B does not mean not A implies not B.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:
"...different maledictions are always cumulative..." sounds very much like "the same malediction is not cumulative" to me.

Which is a logical fallacy. A => B does not mean !B => !A

Actually, yes it does. This is the "Law of the Contrapositive" (or the Law of Contraposition). Now whether what he said was the contrapositive of the other is quite a muddled mess of semantic arguments

Just as it has been said here a few times. Something being inferred or implied in the rules does not make it a rule, that would be RAI not RAW. If it is written then it is WRITTEN.

Also I agree that this looks like a logical fallacy.

Jms - although that commits the fallacy of excluded middle, so is not always true.