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.

I know blessings don't stack but do Maledictions, can you cast Terrify more than once on a unit? Is that considered a Buff?

It says end of the Psychic Phase, is that any psychic phase so you'd go through yours then at the end of your opponent they'd test again?

It is still using that annoying "Only Different Malediction's Stack" wording, so expect the very same debate....

No matter how many Terrify can be in place on a single unit, if that unit takes a single Morale check at the end of the Psychic phase they have fulfilled all instances of terrify.

I feel Terrify was just an example the Opening Poster was using, that the core of the post was simply the question 'Do Maledictions Stack?'

Basically, I can't find anywhere where Maledictions don't stack.

Specifically about Terrify it seems to cause two tests, one at the end of your phase, one at the end of their phase.

Hollismason wrote:
Basically, I can't find anywhere where Maledictions don't stack.

Specifically about Terrify it seems to cause two tests, one at the end of your phase, one at the end of their phase.

Unless the BRB states that they don't stack, then they do

Maybe I missed it.

Zodiark wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Basically, I can't find anywhere where Maledictions don't stack.

Specifically about Terrify it seems to cause two tests, one at the end of your phase, one at the end of their phase.

Unless the BRB states that they don't stack, then they do

In fact the exact opposite is true. Unless the BRB says that they fo stack then they don't.

Annoyingly they put in the extra wording on Blessings to make it super clear but didn't bother for Maledictions despite using the same "different powers stack" wording which will always lead to some people trying to gain an advantage through attacking weak wording.

Hrmmm. I'll look at my book again. I think Blessings specifically says it doesn't stack , but Maledictions don't say that.

Like the wording and such is that is specifically says blessings.

Yes here it is

"The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative."

Am I missing something on Maledictions? Cause I don't see that same sentence unless it's a snake then it's going to bite me.

Hollismason wrote:
Hrmmm. I'll look at my book again. I think Blessings specifically says it doesn't stack , but Maledictions don't say that.

Like the wording and such is that is specifically says blessings.

Yes here it is

"The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative."

Am I missing something on Maledictions? Cause I don't see that same sentence unless it's a snake then it's going to bite me.

It's an interpretation of RAW. There is nothing to contradict, but there is nothing to support either. So best to play it as is or ask someone who you can trust to be objective and knowledgeable, a theory crafting forum isn't the best idea imho

40k is a permissive ruleset though so , meh I dunno , I dunno if it does or not. 50/50 on this.

Hollismason wrote:
40k is a permissive ruleset though so , meh I dunno , I dunno if it does or not. 50/50 on this.

Multiple ways to go about it.

Roll a die to play it one way, say even you do one way odds you do another. Discuss with an opponent. Or follow what comes to mind as you read the ruling naturally, your natural instincts and understanding of the game mechanics will kick in

Yeah, we're not really interpreting rules as intended right now, asI think it's intention is that they do not in fact stack, but RAW is most common with TOs.

Also People on Vassal an IRL are pretty RAW, my friends are RAI. People I play pick up with are usually RAW just so their no confusion.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah, we're not really interpreting rules as intended right now, asI think it's intention is that they do not in fact stack, but RAW is most common with TOs.

Also People on Vassal an IRL are pretty RAW, my friends are RAI. People I play pick up with are usually RAW just so their no confusion.

To be fair, RAW is not always clear as is evident in other threads which leads to Rules as Interpreted and the golden rule of 40k which shall not be mentioned. Simply discuss with your opponent until you hear otherwise. You won't find an exact ruling to state either way on this one sorry.

Yeah I understand RAI but argueing RAI isn't what we're trying to figure out.

40k being a permissive ruleset RAW they do stack.

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I understand RAI but argueing RAI isn't what we're trying to figure out.

40k being a permissive ruleset RAW they do stack.

Then they do stack then

Hollismason wrote:
Yeah I understand RAI but argueing RAI isn't what we're trying to figure out.

40k being a permissive ruleset RAW they do stack.

So you have a page number that states this? I see permission for different Maledictions to stack. Please can you quote your permission for the same Malediction to stack with itself.

There's two arguments for this, one Permission by Ommission or Permission through Allowance Both are pretty valid which is why YMDC runs in circles as some people fall on the philosophy of one of those two.

I don't see a rule that states similar to Blessing that states they do not in fact stack unless I am missing something.

Hollismason wrote:

There's two arguments for this, one Permission by Ommission or Permission through Allowance Both are pretty valid which is why YMDC runs in circles as some people fall on the philosophy of one of those two.

Yes but we are talking about maledictions. I can see why they wouldn't want blessing to stack cause then you could make unstoppable killing machines, but I don't recall anything restricting maledictions

I think it is clear in 6E and 7E that they are not supposed to stack.

Unfortunately, they did not make the RAW clear. Even the 7E blessings are not completely clear (though the changed wording does lean more towards 'no'.)

Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack. For Example, does enfeeble stack?

It's not just terrify.

Hollismason wrote:
Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.

Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes

Zodiark wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.

Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes

Who said GW wanted little dudes to kill the big dudes?

 CrownAxe wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.

Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes

Who said GW wanted little dudes to kill the big dudes?

Logic. If they didn't having debuffs in the game would be pointless

Zodiark wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Zodiark wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Blessing are definitely not suppose to stack at all. In Fact actually think most Maledictions have the caveat that they do in fact stack.

Maledictions stacking makes sense, that way little dudes can have a chance of killing big dudes

Who said GW wanted little dudes to kill the big dudes?

Logic. If they didn't having debuffs in the game would be pointless

Logic: They want you to buy big dudes to be able to kill other big dudes

This I cannot dispute lol. But it's so nice to see a mob of little dudes take out a big one

Zodiark wrote:
This I cannot dispute lol. But it's so nice to see a mob of little dudes take out a big one

It is. But it doesn't mean the rules allow stacking maledictions

Doesn't mean they don't either

Okay finally got home and got the exact wording which is completely different than blessings

Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).

Now for Comparison what Blessing say which is completely different wording

The benefit of any one particular blessing can only be gained once per unit per turn, but benefits from different blessings are cumulative.

So now I don't know what the hell.

Ugh I feel like writing a letter to GW.

I find it interesting that Blessings state they are non-cumulative with themselves but Maledictions do not, it's almost like they didn't put that rule in the Maledictions part deliberately because they're supposed to be stackable.