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 realize this has been asked before but I couldn't find a solid conclusion... can a Malediction (For example, Enfeeble,) stack upon itself?
To post what I already read...
It comes down to two arguments.
Argument A. What did they mean by 'Different' Maledictions? Is that meant to say that Maledictions of different nams stack? Or that merely Maledictions which are cast separately?
Argument B. Permissive ruleset. Ignoring the argument above, they never say that effects DO NOT stack between multiple castings of the same.

So what's the consensus?

Crap... I meant to add two more options to the poll for the 'Permissive Ruleset' argument.

I think you misunderstand what a "permissive ruleset" is, it's a ruleset where you need permission to do something, rather than having permission to do something unless the rules say otherwise. As far a malediction stacking, the rule is poorly written so there's a bit of ambiguity, but I think the writers of the rules intended it not to stack regardless of where each power is cast from (plus how many psykers are capable of casting the same power multiple times?). This is also the more conservative interpretation and the one which weakens my army the most, so I'll continue to play it like I can't until the ambiguity is cleared up. If I'm wrong, my army just got a new toy to use, if I played it the other way and was wrong I'd have to apologise to every player who had a unit I double Enfeeble'd and instakilled.

I used the term 'Permissive Ruleset' as in 'Is it permissive or not?' But I see your point.
At my LGS we play it that the penalties can stack, but not from the same target. (So you'd need a lot of psykers or a lot of luck to get it stacked.)

To stack they have to be different Maledictions. Two 'Enfeebles' are not different.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:
To stack they have to be different Maledictions. Two 'Enfeebles' are not different.

That would be assuming that "Different" actually means "A Malediction other than the same one", quite the logical leap. Since the rulebook does not define different, it falls to us to use English to understand it:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote: 1) used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about:

This is the first definition of "different" given by Oxford Dictionaries. As you can see, this doesn't really clarify the issue, as you could argue that the same malediction wasn't "distinct" from one already cast. However, you could argue it was too.

Oxford Dicionaries wrote: 2) further; additional:

Note the word additional. This shows, I would say, that different (read: additional) Maledictions do stack.

I would argue that yes, Maledictions do stack on themselves provided that they come from different sources.

Iranna.

Mathematically they stack and as long as they are different manifestations of a power the rules state they stack. Even if from the same source (Eldrad for instance casting enfeeble twice). I think Eldrad is the only psyker left who could cast the same power twice anyway and that is likely to change soon so the same source thing will become moot.

As far as I know (an how ive played it so far), Maledictions can stack as long as they have come from two different sources. As far as Eldrad goes, I cant say, I have no experience with Eldar.

You have permission to stack, and no restriction. They stack

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."

Could the rule be more ambiguous? My interpretation is that if two different Psykers cast Enfeeble, the effects stack. My reasoning is mostly based on the fact that there aren't multiple Psychic powers in the BRB that effect the same statistic, so with BRB powers there isn't any other way to stack the -1 penalty to S and T. This is a weak argument however, since it could be that this rule exists so that Enfeeble + Gift of Contagion or something stack.

This is one that requires a FAQ, and until then you'll have to sort it out with your foe ahead of time (worst case, Most Important Rule it) or TO.

I don't really see this as being ambiguous. Two different psykers cast Enfeeble, then it's two different Enfeebles. I may not like it, but that seems to be what the rules say. It seems pretty clear to me.

How about this?

If one psyker has a special rule to use the same power more than once per turn ; are these two powers different?

Yes they are.

The better question is What is considered "different maledictions" and what is the same malediction as defined by the BRB. (Or the English language if it is not defined in the BRB).

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time. If so what is this situation?

Identical twins look the same, but they are different.

I think they stack. It's all about how deep you want to go into it. The more you want to describe powers from 2 sources with the same name the more different they become.

Game mechanics-wise two instances of the same malediction are in fact two instances of the same power. You can try to claim that in RL everything is in some fashion unique and that in some way should translate into the game but such a claim is entirely unsupported. Two instances of enfeeble are in every way identical because the rules only allow it to exist in one manner. No matter the source or the target each is essentially a cut-n-paste copy of the other. Put them both on the same target and there is not way to differentiate between the two at all.

That still doesn't stop them stacking.

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time. If so what is this situation?

And what exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

We know that "that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..." so what does the book mean by the same malediction as opposed to "different maledictions"?

I am really curious if the same malediction is even a ting.

Anyone have any insight?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time. If so what is this situation?

And what exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

We know that "that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..." so what does the book mean by the same malediction as opposed to "different maledictions"?

I am really curious if the same malediction is even a ting.

Anyone have any insight?

It is very possible for a unit of three Zoanthropes to have several of the same maledictions if they all roll entirely on the same power sets. If, for example, they all roll on Biomancy some or all of them may come up with Enfeeble. If they all roll on different ones the unit might end up with enfeeble, terrify, objuration mechanicum and dominate.

But different psykers casting Enfeeble are different castings right?

And therefore they are not the same malediction, they are " different maledictions"?

But different psykers casting Enfeeble are different castings right?

Even the same psyker casting the same power multiple times are different castings. He's rolled different dice for them.

For instance think of a Carnifex with 2 twin linked Devourers firing them both at the same unit. Does he get 12 shots (6 from each different gun) or 6 shots (because it is two instances of the same gun).

 FlingitNow wrote:

But different psykers casting Enfeeble are different castings right?

Even the same psyker casting the same power multiple times are different castings. He's rolled different dice for them.

So again:

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time?

If so what is this situation?

What exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

Can anyone shed some light on these questions. Thanks.

"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."


Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source.

But this is GW so gods alone knows what they actually intended by that rule.

Rumbleguts wrote:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."


Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source.

Then the BRB quote would only pertain to differently named maledictions which happen affect the same stat(s).

 DeathReaper wrote:
So again:

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time?

If so what is this situation?

What exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

Can anyone shed some light on these questions. Thanks.

Please stop spamming the thread with the same text over and over again.

Eldrad can have two of the same malediction in effect at the same time. I can't think of any other current examples.

Rumbleguts wrote:
"Note that bonuses and penalties from different maledictions are always cumulative ..."


Since a psyker cannot have the same psychic power twice, and since a psyker can never use the same psychic power twice in a turn, and since I have not seen a single example of a malediction that has a duration past the next possible use of the power there would never be an instance that one psyker could use a malediction twice to create a "same" malediction. Therefore, by that reasoning, when the rules says different maledictions, it would have to mean a malediction which has a different name, not just from a different source.

But this is GW so gods alone knows what they actually intended by that rule.

RAW I would have to agree with this, HIWPI I will admit I do like casting enfeeble twice it is horrible.

What it may mean in regards to bonuses and penalties, if enfeeble is cast on a iron armed psyker the penaltie and bonus are cumulative.

To say two apples are different because they were bought from different shops still does not excuse the fact they are two apples.

I think I'd have to go with the idea that the same named Malediction doesn't stack with another casting of itself regardless of source.

Reasoning is the word 'different' being added to that sentence is not needed otherwise. If you leave it:

"Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative...."

There would be no question as to if Enfeeble would stack, it simply would. Adding 'Different' changes what I believe the rule is saying.

Clearly this just how I look at it, as I am sure rules writers don't necessarily look at it this way. LoL

 Janthkin wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
So again:

Is there a situation where a unit could have two or more of the same malediction in effect at the same time?

If so what is this situation?

What exactly is meant by the same Malediction?

Can anyone shed some light on these questions. Thanks.

Please stop spamming the thread with the same text over and over again.

Eldrad can have two of the same malediction in effect at the same time. I can't think of any other current examples.

Apologies for the repeated question, but it really needs to be addressed, and no one has addressed it. (Except for your Eldrad example, but even if Eldrad casts enfeeble twice, is that the same Malediction?)

I voted no, as that is how I read the sentance.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I think I'd have to go with the idea that the same named Malediction doesn't stack with another casting of itself regardless of source.

Reasoning is the word 'different' being added to that sentence is not needed otherwise. If you leave it:

"Note that bonuses and penalties from maledictions are always cumulative...."

There would be no question as to if Enfeeble would stack, it simply would. Adding 'Different' changes what I believe the rule is saying.

Clearly this just how I look at it, as I am sure rules writers don't necessarily look at it this way. LoL

This is how I'd respond to this:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote: 1) used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about:

This is the first definition of "different" given by Oxford Dictionaries. As you can see, this doesn't really clarify the issue, as you could argue that the same malediction wasn't "distinct" from one already cast. However, you could argue it was too.

Oxford Dicionaries wrote: 2) further; additional:

Note the word additional. This shows, I would say, that different (read: additional) Maledictions do stack.

I would argue that yes, Maledictions do stack on themselves.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

This is how I'd respond to this:

Oxford Dictionaries wrote: 1) used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about:

This is the first definition of "different" given by Oxford Dictionaries. As you can see, this doesn't really clarify the issue, as you could argue that the same malediction wasn't "distinct" from one already cast. However, you could argue it was too.

Iranna.

I feel this does clarify the issue as for the terms of the game. I think different comes into play because:

They say cumulative to mean that they do not overide the previous Malediction if different...a different in that it is not a Malediction not already mentioned. But casting a second of the 'same' not 'different' Malediction would not be cumulative.


I hope I'm not too FUBAR in the mind and others don't understand where I'm coming from...LoL