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.

OK, so obviously a single psyker can't cast enfeeble multiple times in one turn, but if I've got two or more psykers each with enfeeble, can they all cast it on one target to have the -1 strength and toughness stack?

Also, in the unlikely event you had enough casts to reduce the targets S or T down to zero, would the unit just automatically die with no saves allowed (as per the Zero Level Characteristics section in the BRB?).

I just really really want to cast it multiple times on a huge unit of Ork Boyz and make them all just lie down and die...

The same Malediction does not stack according to the BRB

Yes. BRB states clearly that blessing and maledictions are cumulative, so if you've got it multiple times in your army you should be able to cast it multiple times. As far as I can see, it has no limit on how far you can take the stat, so yes, you should be able to actually kill a whole unit with it. There are possibly better ways, but I'd love to see the look on your opponents face... Only need to get it off 3 times for an Eldar unit, for example...

What units are out there that are S or T1?

...time passes...

Ok so just went through the reference in the rulebook - looks like the only things you can really kill off with this would be Ratlings or Sanctioned Psykers from IG, since they are only S2. Lowest for anything else is 3 - so you gotta get it three times, and manage to get all three in range and cast successfully within a single turn. Not impossible...!

- Edit -

Scratch all that. Maledictions stack but BRB states that you can't take stats below 1. Damn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marshall Ragnar wrote:
The same Malediction does not stack according to the BRB

Where does it say that it doesn't? It says quite specifically that it does in the Psykers section... Is there another section that countermands that?

I don't have the BRB on me (at work) but I think it is where the Maledictions are explained.

BRB pg 68: 'Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, . .'

Note that it specifies DIFFERENT maledictions.

This came up in another thread recently (and the Eldar FAQ collection thread, to boot).

It's unclear at the moment - how do you define "different"? Must they be different powers entirely, or - to borrow a gaming term - do different instances of the same power count as different?

Personally I'm erring on the side of the latter.

Currently, yes they do stack.
You have permission to cast a spell.
A different Psyker can cast the same spell.
At no point is there a restriction from applying both effects.

Doesn't matter how "different" is defined, that rule is giving permission to stack, but not restricting anything from stacking.

The big questions is around what is meant by 'different powers' - it's really not clear whether it's different types of maledictions or just different instances of the same power.

You can def take characteristics down to zero tho, with the exception of initiatinve. The latest errata says:

ERRATA
Page 2 – Modifiers
Change the last sentence to “A model’s Initiative cannot be modified below 1, and no other characteristic can be modified below 0”.

It's never going to be a competative tactic, but it would be fun. I might try 5 daemon princes with level 3 biomancy which gives potentially enough enfeebles to kill whole units

This is my interpretation of 'Different' in regards to Maledictions stacking:

Gift of Contagion (CSM) is a malediction.

Enfeeble is a malediction.

Gift of Contagion + Enfeeble DO stack as they are different maledictions.

Enfeeble + Enfeeble DO NOT stack as they are the same malediction. i.e. not different.

Edit: As for reducing characteristics below 1, the malediction section (pg 68) forbids this.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
This is my interpretation of 'Different' in regards to Maledictions stacking:

Gift of Contagion (CSM) is a malediction.

Enfeeble is a malediction.

Gift of Contagion + Enfeeble DO stack as they are different maledictions.

Enfeeble + Enfeeble DO NOT stack as they are the same malediction. i.e. not different.

Exactly how I read it. It is the same Malidiction being cast by different psychers.

Ah, I'd missed the bit under Maledictions about not reducing below 1. Not a huge loss there, as it was only ever a comedy value tactic.

I think there is a bit more abiguity around the 'different' maledictions. The line on p68 could be read either way as highlighted by Super Ready - without an FAQ it's open to interpretation.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
This is my interpretation of 'Different' in regards to Maledictions stacking:

Gift of Contagion (CSM) is a malediction.

Enfeeble is a malediction.

Gift of Contagion + Enfeeble DO stack as they are different maledictions.

Enfeeble + Enfeeble DO NOT stack as they are the same malediction. i.e. not different.

Edit: As for reducing characteristics below 1, the malediction section (pg 68) forbids this.

This is my understanding as well. If they meant that all maledictions always stack, there would be no need for word 'different.'

we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

tgf wrote:
we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

 DeathReaper wrote:

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

That doesn't matter. If we go by interpretation that different instances of same malediction are different maledictions, certainly it does not matter whether they were cast by the same person or not? Nowhere in the rules it says: 'maledictions by different casters' merely 'different maledictions.'

 DeathReaper wrote:

tgf wrote:
we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

Except Eldrad couldn't actually take any powers that would actually "stack" so that argument doesn't make much sense.

Darkwater wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

tgf wrote:
we play it as no because there is no situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster. The word different would be superfluous.

There was before the Eldar book came out last week.

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

Except Eldrad couldn't actually take any powers that would actually "stack" so that argument doesn't make much sense.

I was pointing out that his claim was false as there clearly was a "situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster."

so you were pointing out a false assertion with a made up one...

tgf wrote:
so you were pointing out a false assertion with a made up one...

It is not made up...

Eldrad used to be able to cast the same power twice in a single turn.

Is a true statement.

There was a "situation where you can cast the "same malediction" from the same caster." before the Eldar book came out last week...

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
BRB pg 68: 'Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, . .'

Note that it specifies DIFFERENT maledictions.

exactly, DIFFERENT maledictions stack, not identical ones.

and the arguement that a different caster casting the same spell makes the same spell different is complete fallacy.


takes a lot of streches of the imagination to say "enfeeble is a different malediction from enfeeble"

you can ASSUME that identical meledictions/blessings stack, but that is not being given explicit permission.

in the cases where identical spells do stack, like in the chaos codex, it is specifically stated that they do stack with themselves in their own specific rules.

Different Maledictions stack. Maledictions from different psykers are different, as they require separate psychic checks. They can stack, but may not debuff any characteristic below 1.

Saying separate Maledictions are the same is like saying two meltaguns are the same.

There is nothing in any of the books saying that they can't stack, and there is a rule saying Maledictions do stack. RAW there is no rule whatsoever to indicate they don't. If your group makes an agreement fine, but there is no RAW support that they don't stack. I have stacked Enfeeble in two seperate GTs, and both times the judge has agreed. I have also done it in multiple RTTs, and never had it ruled against me.

 jifel wrote:
Different Maledictions stack. Maledictions from different psykers are different, as they require separate psychic checks.

No they aren't.

they are only "different" because you want them to be, two melta guns are the same weapon, albeit two separate instances of the same weapon.

a different caster, casting the same power, is still the same identical power,

it is just a separate casting of an identical power,

 Crimson wrote:

 jifel wrote:
Different Maledictions stack. Maledictions from different psykers are different, as they require separate psychic checks.

No they aren't.

Compelling argument there. Even if you are correct, (which I disagree with) there is no rule saying that the same Malediction doesn't stack. RAW they stack, until an FAQ is issued.

Ok, so here is my American English framed view on this question.

Some are arguing that different means different named etc....

To analogize this: how many steaks would I have on a plate if I had two identical 8oz ribeye steaks? Two correct? Now if I was told I could stack different steaks, would I then have one or two steaks stacked on my plate in the above case?

I think my point is that as, hopefully, I have demonstrated, the requirement of having two different steaks... Errr stacks sorry.... Is fulfilled by having two seperate steaks regardless of whether they are catagorically identical.

I mean if you asked some one to bring you two different steaks how could you be angry if you brought two steaks like i said previously? You didn't qualify your request by defining further what you meant by different, I.e. flavored, cooking level, cut etc..., and therefore the letter of your request was met.

My .02

If you have two interpretations of a rule, and one of them removes any reason for the rule to exist, that one is most likely wrong.

Is efeeble always enfeeble? If yes, then it is always the same as enfeeble. The rules give permission for different maledictions to stack. Maledictions that are not different do not recieve permission to stack.

If the arguement is that it is different because it is cast by a different source, then no malediction would be capable of being in any state but 'different.' If no malediction is capable of being different, the rule has no reason to exist and effects no part of the game. If such is the case, that interpretation is wrong.

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

Weird metaphor, but it works! Its really like having two Marines with Meltaguns. You don't need to have permission to try to shoot two seperate meltas at the same Carnifex. Of course they stack! Nothing says they dont. Enfeebles the same way. Nothing says they dont stack. They even tried to clarify it and people don't accept it.

EDIT:

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

 jifel wrote:
Weird metaphor, but it works! Its really like having two Marines with Meltaguns. You don't need to have permission to try to shoot two seperate meltas at the same Carnifex. Of course they stack! Nothing says they dont. Enfeebles the same way. Nothing says they dont stack. They even tried to clarify it and people don't accept it.

EDIT:

cryhavok wrote:
*snip*

Here is a question for those arguing for stacking enfeebles: where are you given permission for one enfeeble to be different from another?

They are from different psykers. I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

melta guns dont stack, they have two separate effects,

if they did stack it would b str 16,

totally differnt

if enfeeble is a different spell then enfeeble, simply because it has been cast in a separate instance,

then your pysker can cast enfeeble twice, because the restriction on pyskers casting the "same" power twice does not apply, because its a 2nd casting and hence "different" in your mind.

cant have it both ways and say they are the same power for the purposes of pyskers not being able to cast them 2x, and different powers for the purposes of stacking.

by your interpretation, one pyker can cast enfeeble twice, because the 2nd casting is a "different" power

 jifel wrote:

They are from different psykers.

So what?

I say they stack, and the rules say -1 from Strength and Toughness. It doesnt say base toughness, just toughness, so if I do it one after the other it is -1, then -1 again. The book says different Maledictions stack. Even if we disagree on "different", where does it say that the same Malediction doesn't stack?

If all maledictions would stack, it would say that. It doesn't. It says different maledictions stack.

 Crimson wrote:
If all maledictions would stack, it would say that. It doesn't. It says different maledictions stack.

I enfeeble you. You suffer -1T.
I use that nurgle power on yuo. You're supposed to suffer -1T. You're already suffering -1T from the Enfeeble. Do they stack? Oh, the rule says they do.

I have permission to cast a second Enfeeble.
I have permission to apply the effect (assuming I passed the test and you failed to deny).
Find denial of that permission. Permission for different ones to stack is not denial for same ones to stack.