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 far as I am aware and the way I am reading it, Maledictions are in fact stackable.

So now what happens with Terrify?

It takes -2 to leadership instead of -1, I don't think it would have to take multiple morale tests at the end of the phase.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It takes -2 to leadership instead of -1, I don't think it would have to take multiple morale tests at the end of the phase.

Why would it not though?

Each Malediction is cumulative, I mean it's right there and apparently Terrify affects a unit twice once in yours once in theirs.

That would be 4 Tests at -2. That's a little much. I mean any unit that isn't fearless, they straight up fail. Odds that I quickly calculated with LD 10 goes to 8, even at 8 it's a failure of like > 70%.

I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing, are you taking "different" maledictions to mean originating from different casters, as opposed to different named effects?

That's the problem. It's really really unclear. Does it mean Different Maledictions spells? Does it mean Different Spells that cause the same reduction?

Why is it worded that way, why is it not worded like Blessing.

I think the intention really is to have Maledictions stack and the RAW I think they do.

Trying to figure out how they don't.

I posted previously the clear distinctions from the wording of a Malediction and a Blessing. The problem is Maledictions say are ALWAYS cumulative.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).that's a weird way to write that sentence. Do they mean different casters? That doesn't make sense. How can a Caster cast the same malediction twice on one unit?

Do they mean the same spell from the same Caster?


It's poorly written.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing, are you taking "different" maledictions to mean originating from different casters, as opposed to different named effects?

Unlike Blessings, Maledictions don't have a restriction to only have 1 of the same power in effect per unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hollismason wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
It takes -2 to leadership instead of -1, I don't think it would have to take multiple morale tests at the end of the phase.

Why would it not though?

I was thinking more because most "end of the ____ phase" effects only happen once, morale tests due to casualties, grounding tests, etc. So I don't see why this would be different.
It is entirely possible that I'm wrong, though.

It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?

Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.

 azreal13 wrote:
It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?

Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.

This way makes a lot more sense. If it was multiples of the same enfeeb, how would you determine when each one ended in a proper context that wouldn't involve hassles

 azreal13 wrote:
It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?

Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.

No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.

Bookkeeping.

It isn't impossible to keep track of, just a PitA

Well actually all of the maledictions always end during your psychic phase so it wouldn't really be a issue. There's not one malediction that I am aware of that wouldn't.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?

Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.

No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.

Really?

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).

Yeah but WTF does that even mean, does it mean different copies of the same spell, different spells that affect the same characteristic.

It doesn't help that it's written completely differently than Blessings which is very very clear.

 azreal13 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?

Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.

No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.

Really?

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).

This rule does not restrict multiples uses of the same power affecting the same unit.

Like I say, HIWPI is

Effects stack, so two powers that both list -1 LD as part of their effect would cumulatively remove -2 LD. However, the same power cast by two Psykers on the same unit would only result in the effect being applied once.

Equally, other game effects with the same effect, for instance Fiends Of Slaanesh in range of a unit with Brotherhood Of Psykers, would also stack.

To me, that seems RAI and the most logical way forward, but I freely admit that RAW doesn't favour this over other interpretations.

Hollismason wrote:
Well actually all of the maledictions always end during your psychic phase so it wouldn't really be a issue. There's not one malediction that I am aware of that wouldn't.

What wouldn't be an issue?

 PrinceRaven wrote:

Spoiler:

 azreal13 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
It all comes down to the definition of "different" then?

Yeah, I can see a RAW argument for multiple terrifies, enfeebles etc, but HIWPI would be that effects are cumulative, but "different" means spells/powers with different names.

No, it doesn't, because being "different" doesn't matter at all for Maledictions, only Blessings.

Really?

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).

This rule does not restrict multiples uses of the same power affecting the same unit.

It does if you take different to mean "powers that aren't of the same name" and not "powers cast from different points of origin"

No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.

If that were the case, the word different in the quoted sentence we're discussing becomes redundant.

Yeah that's the big problem I have on one hand I could go the other way and say " Well it means different Psychic Powers" or I could say " Well obviously it just means different iterations of the same spell".

Just very poorly written and I think honestly RAI , and not RAW that it was intended that in fact Maledictions do stack.

I mean taking in the context of how blessing was worded then how this was worded. Its hard to to argue that.


Goddamnit why can GW hire an editor.

There's every chance that the language doesn't stack because it was written by two different authors.

One editor with a technical background would make an enormous world of difference.

 azreal13 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.

If that were the case, the word different in the quoted sentence we're discussing becomes redundant.

In this context, yes, the entire sentence is completely redundant.
If, for instance, we were discussing whether Iron Arm and Enfeeble or Terrify and The Horror stack it would be a very important rule to those discussions.

I'm guessing the intent was that you can't use the same spell of the same name on a unit and double the effects, but you can use 2 spells of different names on a unit that has a similar or the same effect.

in other words, I can't cast terrify on a unit twice and get 2 effects that stack (ie -2 LD), but I can cast terrify and horror (in this example assuming they has a similar effect) (and assuming they had -1 LD each, get -2 LD) on the same unit and have the effects stack.
Which seems to be in the intent of the writing of the rules.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
No it really doesn't, it only says different powers always stack, it says nothing about multiple uses of the same power and is thus irrelevant in a discussion talking about having Terrify manifested against a unit that's already been Terrified.

If that were the case, the word different in the quoted sentence we're discussing becomes redundant.

In this context, yes, the entire sentence is completely redundant.
If, for instance, we were discussing whether Iron Arm and Enfeeble or Terrify and The Horror stack it would be a very important rule to those discussions.

For that to work then

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

Well, since we're discussing intent; If that's the case, Sorris, why do the Blessings rules have specific wording preventing the use of multiple manifestations of the same Blessing, when said rule was left out of the Malediction and Witchfire sections?

That's what I want it to be, but really you have to admit it's very unclear. Let's do word replacement with instead of Malediction replace use Terrify.

Now this is just word substitution and let's see what we get.


Malediction

Terrify weaken the Psyker’s enemies by reducing their characteristics or inflicting special rules that penalise their abilities. Terrifies target one or more enemy units and, unless otherwise stated, last until the start of the Psyker’s next Psychic phase Terrifies can affect units that are locked in close combat. Note that bonuses and penalties from different Terrifies are always cumulative, but cannot, unless otherwise stated, take characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership).

That's why i think they stack.



I mean this is a simple word subsitution and I think when you do that it is evident what is going on. I hope this helps.
It's weird to write it out like that but I think it illustrates the problems we are having.

I mean replace Maledictions with X and you get the same issue.

 azreal13 wrote:


For that to work then

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

Is functionally identical to

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).

The word different is there for a reason, and I believe it is there to prevent multiple castings of the same maledictions multiple times for cumulative effects, while still allowing for maledictions that have similar effects to be cast multiple times for greater penalties.

Those are 2 quite different rules.
One of them states allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledictions as long as they are different powers.
The other allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledctions no matter what.

If the word different was not in the rule, a unit with Doom cast on it twice would be required to reroll their saves twice, which is expressly forbidden by the rulebook, thus breaking the game.

For the rule to prevent all cases of multiple uses of the Malediction from stacking, it would have to say:

"Note that only 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)."
or
"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). Bonuses and penalties from multiple manifestations of the same malediction are always non-cumulative.
or
"The benefit of any one particular malediction can only be gained once per unit per turn, but bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are cumulative. Unless otherwise stated, maledictions cannot modify characteristics above 10 or below 1 (or below 2, in the case of Leadership)." - Note that this is the same wording blessings have.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


For that to work then

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

Is functionally identical to

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).

The word different is there for a reason, and I believe it is there to prevent multiple castings of the same maledictions multiple times for cumulative effects, while still allowing for maledictions that have similar effects to be cast multiple times for greater penalties.

Those are 2 quite different rules.
One of them states allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledictions as long as they are different powers.
The other allows you to stack the effects of any 2 Maledctions no matter what.

If the word different did not exist, a unit with Doom cast on it twice would be required to reroll their saves twice, which is expressly forbidden by the rulebook, thus breaking the game.

Please see my previous post, it's very clear if you word substitute that it works that way. In that multiple Maledictions do in fact stack.

I mean I don't think they should or maybe I do. I'm not sure if it wasn't for the super hardline that Blessings states I'd say no they don't but.....

No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, they maledictions do not stack. There is absolutely zero permission for them to do so.

About from the basic psychic rules allowing you to resolve a malediction on an enemy unit?

I have a unit my opponent has cast Terrify on, is it still an enemy unit? Yes -> He has permission to Terrify it.