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 do not think they stack.

Why would the Chaos codex specifically say that it is cumulative? They wouldn't need to say that if all maledictions stack or were cumulative.

 Mythra wrote:
I do not think they stack.

Why would the Chaos codex specifically say that it is cumulative? They wouldn't need to say that if all maledictions stack or were cumulative.

Just because a piece of information is redundant doesn't mean that it disproves something.

Iranna.

RAW they stack. There is permission to cast more than one power that targets the same unit, permission to resolve the power, and nothing in thepsychic power rules that then restricts this

Permission is given. Absent restriction appearing elsewhere, it stacks.

RaW it stacks, but strongly implied RaI it does not, and HIWPl is that doesn't.

Pyrian wrote:
RaW it stacks, but strongly implied RaI it does not, and HIWPl is that doesn't.

I agree with this. My vote was not stacking.

I keep getting tempted to run 4 enfeebling heralds of nurgle together joined to another unit, but I wont do it till they actually say what they intended.

how do you get 4 enfeebles?

tgf wrote:
how do you get 4 enfeebles?

Lucky rolls, I suppose.

nevermind - fantasy confusion.

4x enfeeble will happen on average 1 out of 81 games with 4 level 2 biomancy only heralds.

Pyrian wrote:
RaW it stacks, but strongly implied RaI it does not, and HIWPl is that doesn't.

I agree with this. In a tournament I'd say 'discuss it with the organizer' but if I held the tournament I'd allow it. In a friendly game I'd suggest they only stack from different sources or some other compromise.

I saw this used by a nurgle player with that spell that reduces I and WS. It seems legit but broken all at the same time.

ok fine, have fun dealing with my strength 10 initiative ten grey knights now

or better yet, CHEAP death cult assasins at I6 and str 10

Hammerhand has always explicitly stacked. In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted. But no one did it because it was so cost inefficient. It is hardly new or Broken.

I don't really understand why people have a problem with it. No one complains when my squad with 5 boltguns stacks and takes 10 rapid fire shots even though they are from the same source. Or a Warwalker with 2 scatter lasers has 8 shots...

What baffles me is peopling saying the think the rules are one thing but would rule the exact opposite in a Tournament and play it differently in a friendly too?!?! Bizarre.

 FlingitNow wrote:
In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted..

If this was true in 5th ed, it would still be true. Since at least 4th edition you could not cast the same power multiple times in a turn without permission.

Comparing multiple modifiers to getting multiple shots is..... inconsistent. If the weapon you were speaking about had a rule that lowered one of a model's characteristics it would be comparable. As it is, having the chance to deal two wounds is much different then making it so all wounds dealt to a model have their wound chances greatly increased or having an enemy unit unable to defend themselves in combat at all.

When dealing with RAI vs RAW and fun vs tournament of course people are going to play different ways depending on what is happening. If I'm playing a fun game I don't bring into it every broken combo I can fit into my points allotment because I'm there to play not to win. Tourney's have to rely on RAW, unless they post rules that state otherwise, just so everyone is on the same page. It's a layered mess which is why the rules state you agree with your opponent before you start on terrain. Don't make assumptions that everyone's RAW or RAI understanding is the same.

My 2 cents is that there is an ambiguity in the rules in the BRB and the chaos codex's wording on it's maledictions stacking is a very clear indicator as to which interpretation of the brb's use of "different" should be used.

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted..

If this was true in 5th ed, it would still be true. Since at least 4th edition you could not cast the same power multiple times in a turn without permission.

4th Ed had no impact on 5th Ed. As standard you could only cast 1 power per turn so the BrB did not cover a psyker casting the same power multiple times. Everyone except GK that could cast multiple powers had it specified that they couldn't cast the same power twice. Notice a lack of this wording in the GK codex. However the 6th Ed rule book specifies that a model that can cast multiple powers can only cast each power once. Therefore GK can not do this anymore, but they could in 5th. Not that that is particularly relevant.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
In 5th Ed one psyker could even cast Hammerhand 3 times if he wanted..

If this was true in 5th ed, it would still be true. Since at least 4th edition you could not cast the same power multiple times in a turn without permission.

4th Ed had no impact on 5th Ed. As standard you could only cast 1 power per turn so the BrB did not cover a psyker casting the same power multiple times. Everyone except GK that could cast multiple powers had it specified that they couldn't cast the same power twice. Notice a lack of this wording in the GK codex. However the 6th Ed rule book specifies that a model that can cast multiple powers can only cast each power once. Therefore GK can not do this anymore, but they could in 5th. Not that that is particularly relevant.

Again, no they could not. It was clarified in. the BRB FAQ.

I think the inclusion of the word is the answer. If you take the word different out, then you're simply saying maledictions stack, this would mean you could cast as many of the same ones or different ones as you like. They put in the word different to clarify that you could only, for example put both enfeeble and misfortune on the same unit, but not double of either, they are in no way different.

If you offer me a coke to drink, and I say "could I have something different", and you bring me another coke that wasn't the first one, you would have technically brought me a different drink, but you'd also be willfully misunderstanding what I said.

The inclusion of "different" does not matter, because they left out the restriction "only". The phrase does not say "only different" and interpreting it that way delves into the realm of intent which is impossible to know as the phrase in question contains no actual restrictions on casting and resolving maledictions.

I voted no, since me stance on this issue is well documented in other threads. I'd like to point out, again, that the only time 40k allowed benefits from multiple uses of the same ability to stack was at the end of 5th, right after the last round of 5th Ed FAQs. Once the first 6th Ed FAQs came out, none of those rulings that allowed stacking carried over. The current BRB specifically tells us that unless otherwise noted, benefits ftom multiple uses of the same ability are not cumulative. The note regarding different Malefictions stacking does not contradict this in any way, and is supported by specific 6th Ed examples of Maledictions with wording in their rules giving permission to stack (i.e., otherwise noted).

SJ

 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

Removing 'different' from that sentence could easily be seen as implying that the effects of casting the same malediction in subsequent turns would stack the effects. i.e. that someone's first casting of Enfeeble on a unit would be -1S, -1T, and the second casting on the same unit (the following turn in all cases except 4th-ed Eldrad) would have a cumulative effect of -2S, -2T.

By adding 'different', to me it suggests that the intent was to prevent what I said above, whilst still allowing instances of multiple different psykers casting the same malediction on a single target and having the effects stack.

Apart from the fact the a blessing cannot be stacked in that way, as the effect ends before the new blessing can be applied.

And the only time the word different comes into play is when applying a maledication/blessing. Maledications and blessings dont care about who or when or what cast it so that is a weak defence saying different psyker different power it is still the same maledication/blessing trying to be cast.

Which doesnt alter that you have general permission to apply both results, and nothing restricting you from doing so.

You are reading a permission (to do something you can already do) and turning it into a restriction. Dont.

RAW they don't stack.

pg 32 to help show intent of this "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." and it's a good thing they clarified it as well for things like stealth or you'd have these same people arguing 4 different sources of stealth would stack.

pg 68 "... different maledictions are always cumulative" It's a shame they didn't also specify under the maledictions as well.

pg 419 how many different powers do we see? 7.

Enfeeble = enfeeble. they are identical in every way, and there is no permission anywhere for identical or just all maledictions to stack.

so you can put 3 or 4 enfeebles on a target, they just suffer -1 as they are not cumulative.

sirlynchmob wrote:
pg 32 to help show intent of this "the effects of multiple different special rules are cumulative." and it's a good thing they clarified it as well for things like stealth or you'd have these same people arguing 4 different sources of stealth would stack.

Argument for Intent, Maledictions are not special rules. In other words this rule is completely irrelevant to the discussion and the only reason to bring it up is to distract.

pg 68 "... different maledictions are always cumulative" It's a shame they didn't also specify under the maledictions as well.

How is that denial to stack?

pg 419 how many different powers do we see? 7.

Relevancy?

Enfeeble = enfeeble. they are identical in every way, and there is no permission anywhere for identical or just all maledictions to stack.

So you're not going to resolve the 2nd-nth Enfeeble?

Do we really need this thread again?

determining that it doesn't stack is resolving

You can't compare Stealth and Enfeeble, though. Stealth is a USR, and each USR's effects may only be applied to a unit once. If my unit has five Stealths, it still only gets +1 because that's what Stealth does. Asking "Do you have Stealth?" 5 times doesn't ever change the answer, "Yes." Since I already answered "yes" the first time, no further positive answers are necessary.
Enfeeble is not a USR. Thus, this comparison doesn't solve anything.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do we really need this thread again?

Hell no!
Everyone should Vote in the Poll, leave no comment and never return to this thread again.
Seriously, nothing new is being added that wasn't in the previous thread.

Sirlynch - we have shown permission to resolve, now show denial to resolve.

Given nothing you presented was actually showing this restriction, I assume you have no such argument, and are wrong in claiming "RAW"

If you dsiagree please, find this restriction. Page and paragraph, or concede you are discussing HYWPI