So I was reading a discussion of Psycker Battle Squads, and their Weaken Resolve psychic power, and it occurred to me that it resembled the Necron Pariah ("A Necron Pariah is not a Necron", ) Soulless rule in that it changed a unit's Leadership.

I was involved in a thread where some people argued that because the Rites of Battle rule allowed a unit to use a Dark Angel/Blood Angel/Sicarius's Ld10, a unit that was affected by Soulless would be able to test on Ld10 rather than the Ld7 they had due to the effect of Soulless. The argument being that although the unit had Ld7 due to Soulless, it was using the Captain's Leadership of 10.

It seems to me that these people would argue for a similar result during the interaction of Weaken Resolve and Rites of Battle.

What do ye think, O Dakka?

Weaken resolve does not change the Ld Characteristic, it applies a Negative Modifier (a subtle but important difference). So you would still use Ld10, just Ld10 minus whatever.

Weaken Resolve changes the Leadership value of the target unit, so I would say if they use Rites of Battle, they use the Ld 10, not the lower leadership.

KeithGatchalian wrote:
Weaken Resolve changes the Leadership value of the target unit, so I would say if they use Rites of Battle, they use the Ld 10, not the lower leadership.

No it doesn't. The "Enemy units Leadership is reduced" which is the same as a Leadership Modifier. If it said "Becomes Leadership X" then it would be changing the Stat itself.

Its a good question.

I think I agree with Waaaaagh! at first glance.

But I need to think about this and look over some stuff to be sure.

"the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers....." Doesn't sound much like a "modifier, sounds like it's actually changing the stat line. Just my opinion.

As for the OP. Yeah, I tend to agree that the unit would be able to use Sicarius' leadership 10.

You are acutally reducing the Leadership value, not imposing a modifier on the unit.

When you lose a close combat, the difference in wounds is a modifier.

One way to look at it; They have Sic's leadership as soon as he is fielded with an army. Its not a replacement, upon somthing happening. Like a re-roll, for example. That unit (every unit) gets his leadership of 10. They dont become him, or tests become his to make while still not being targetted specifically or some other magics.. its simply that they get to use his leadership of 10 (at the start of the game) and it is that leadership value of 10 that gets modifyed.

Another way to look at it; in both books the term Leadership is used to represent the number under the Ld collum. So, rather than using a sgt's Ld of 9, you instead you Sic's Ld of 10. That still gets reduced (its still Leadership, nothing changed in the wording between codexes) by x.

@ Razerous, the first way of looking at it is incorrect. The rule is "If Sicarius is on the table, all other space marine units can use his leadership for any moral or pinning tests". As it is written it does not give SM units his leadership value, but allows them to use it when testing. The can in the rule is the key word, it suggests that they retain their initial Ld value and may choose to use his.
The issue is what this means. Does it mean they get it as he has it, i.e. at 10 because he is not affected by the negative modifier, or does it become a part of their statline and then get modified, as in your second scenario. If we are going by the rules strictly as written, I would suggest the first reading is the more correct one, because the rule states that they are using his leadership, not they may substitute his leadership value as their own. Interestingly, this suggest if his unit has its LD reduced, all other units that may use his LD, for instance one with reduced Ld, would use the reduced value, because it is his leadership at the moment.

Additionally, can someone post the weaken resolve rule as written. I would like to see how it reads. I would be hesitant to say it was a modifier if it does not say modifier within the entry.

I wouold say you apply the two together:

First apply weaken resolve: leadership of target unit is now [original -X] , x=no of psykers

Secondm when it comes time to take a test the unit chooses to use Sics ld of 10. They do not use their own, modified leadership, but their boss. This leadership has not been the target of WR and so is not changed.

It is the same as the horror power, where leadership is reduced in a bubble - if the model allowing the affected unit to "use" its leadership is outside the bubble, you would use the unmodified leadership.

This is also different to Orks Mob Rule: their they use their mob size as leadership value in place of their exisitng leadership value - this would then be affected by WR

The base state of any stat is that it is modifiable.
When this isnt the case, it is spelled out (like WH BoL).

Rites of Battle does not tell us to use the commanders unmodified Leadership. Just to use his Leadership.....which is modified by Weaken Resolve.

Weaken Resolve is most certainly a modifier. It just happens to be a modifier that isnt fixed.....just like CC resolution isnt fixed.

Steelmage - except that WR modifies the units leadership, NOT the leadership they use from RoB. by the time they take the test the application of WR has passed.

So? All RoB Does is let them use Ld10 In place of their normal Leadership. You still apply any and all Mods to it

This arguement seems to really be based on timing. So let's look at the order in which things happen.

1. The PBS lowers a unit's leadership.

2. The IG shooot said unit, forcing a morale check from casualties.

3. The targeted unit chooses to use Sic's leadership instead of their leadership.

4. Since Sic's leadership wasn't lowered (only the original unit's was), the unit now uses LD 10 instead of their reduced LD.

I could be worng about this, but the timing in which things happen leads me to think that Rites of Battle is a great counter to the PBS, unless people take 2x PBS and lower Sic's LD, as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - except that WR modifies the units leadership, NOT the leadership they use from RoB. by the time they take the test the application of WR has passed.

I disagree with that. For the entire turn WR reduces the unit's Ld by X amount. So even if they get another model's Ld transplanted I don't see any reason WR doesn't reduce that Ld as well for the test.

Alerian wrote:
I could be worng about this, but the timing in which things happen leads me to think that Rites of Battle is a great counter to the PBS, unless people take 2x PBS and lower Sic's LD, as well.

Here's what I see:


1. The PBS lowers a unit's leadership for the entire turn.

2. The IG shooot said unit, forcing a morale check from casualties.

3. The targeted unit chooses to use Sic's leadership instead of their leadership.

4. Since Weaken Resolve is still affecting the unit the Ld value is reduced.

My point is that Sic's LD doesn't replace the unit's LD. If it did, then i can see the reduction from WR carrying over.

Instead the target unit "can use his (Sic's) Leadership" for tests. If Sic wasn't targeted by WR, then that LD is still 10.

I think there is a big difference between "using" someone els's LD, and having your LD replaced by theirs. Sure, one unit's LD might be reduced, but if they then choose to use another unit's LD, instead of their own, I don't see a reduction carrying over.

yakface wrote:

Alerian wrote:
I could be worng about this, but the timing in which things happen leads me to think that Rites of Battle is a great counter to the PBS, unless people take 2x PBS and lower Sic's LD, as well.

Here's what I see:


1. The PBS lowers a unit's leadership for the entire turn.

2. The IG shooot said unit, forcing a morale check from casualties.

3. The targeted unit chooses to use Sic's leadership instead of their leadership.

4. Since Weaken Resolve is still affecting the unit the Ld value is reduced.

100% Correct. You are still using Ld10, but its LD10 minus x because of WR

I agree with Alerian. The precise wording of WR is as follows:

Choose one enemy unit within 36" and line of sight of the Psyker Battle Squad. For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utlising the power (to a minimum of 2).

That seems to me that it changes the statline itself for the rest of the turn, not the roll as Yak seems to imply.
For instance, imagine RoB said "Use the unit's squad size instead of the leadership value for the test." Would one have the penalty then? If so, then you are penalizing the roll, not the stat.
It seems to me that Siccy's Ld value is as divorced from the target unit's Ld value as it's squad size.

The units leadership is reduced

Sics leadership is used for the test, but does not replace the units leadership (use, not replace) - cf to the Ork mob rule which specifically replqaces their leadership - this is critical for them as otherwise Weirdboyz wouldnt have Ld10 for psychic tests

As the unit is not using their leadership WR cannot apply to Sic. It is not "their" leadership, which is what WR affects.

Wehrkind wrote:I agree with Alerian. The precise wording of WR is as follows:

Choose one enemy unit within 36" and line of sight of the Psyker Battle Squad. For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utlising the power (to a minimum of 2).

That seems to me that it changes the statline itself for the rest of the turn, not the roll as Yak seems to imply.
For instance, imagine RoB said "Use the unit's squad size instead of the leadership value for the test." Would one have the penalty then? If so, then you are penalizing the roll, not the stat.
It seems to me that Siccy's Ld value is as divorced from the target unit's Ld value as it's squad size.

Based off of what I've read so far (and I'd love to see an exact quote of Sicarius' rule), my thinking here is that WR will not work. Sic's leadership does not strike me as a constant that is always in effect. Rather it may be used by other units when taking morale and/or pinning tests. So the way I see it:

Psyker BS WRs target unit A, reducing their leadership to let's say 3
Target A is fired upon suffering enough casualties to trigger a morale test at the end of the Shoooting phase
Target A ?elects? to use Sic's LD replacing their reduced LD, and makes a Morale test.

What I'm not sure of, and what I don't think Yak has sufficiently demonstrated (at least for me) is that WR retroactively applies to Sic's leadership value when a targeted unit decides to use it. Granted I'm making a couple of assumptions about Sic's ability, which is why I'd like to see an actual rules quote.

-Yad

Gee whiz, I'm the Guard player and here I am supporting the position that they get Sicarius' LD 10, unchanged by Weaken Resolve. Something is wrong with this scenario.............

To me, the WR is not a modifier, it's a temporary change in the unit's stat line. If it were a modifier (like losing combat by 2), then it would apply to any LD used by the unit.

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other space marine units can use his leadership for any moral or pinning tests".

There ya go

It is this wording that is key. Sic never replaces the targeted unit's LD, and WR only applies to the target unit's LD, not to the tests that they make. If WR applied to LD tests, or if Sic's LD actually replaced the target unit's LD, then I could see WR trumping RoB, but that is not the case.

Thanks to Rights fo Battle, the target unit can use Sic's unmodified LD10 for tests, rather than their own LD that was lowered by WR. The only way see WR getting around RoB, is to cast WR on Sic, as well.

Choose one enemy unit within 36" and line of sight of the Psyker Battle Squad. For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utlising the power (to a minimum of 2).

don_mondo wrote:Gee whiz, I'm the Guard player and here I am supporting the position that they get Sicarius' LD 10, unchanged by Weaken Resolve. Something is wrong with this scenario.............

To me, the WR is not a modifier, it's a temporary change in the unit's stat line. If it were a modifier (like losing combat by 2), then it would apply to any LD used by the unit.

Wait, why isn't this a modifier? It says that it reduces (modifies) by X amount of psykers...the exact same as losing combat by X wounds, (just this is by # of psykers, not wounds of course) sounds like a modifier to me....

I disagree with Yakface on this.

PG. 47 of the IG Codex:

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utilizing the power (to a minimum of 2)."

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

It's been a long time, but here is my logical argument:

P1: Weaken Resolve lowers the Leadership of the target unit
P2: A unit may use another model's leadership
C: Though Weaken Resolve lowers the leadership of the unit, it doesn't affect the leadership the unit is testing on

The argument that weaken resolve is a modifier doesn't make since as none is implied. Weaken resolve changes the leadership characteristic on the unit for a period of time, but rities of battle presents the option for a unit to use another models leadership. Now if weaken resolved is used against Sicarus, that is a different story.

Thanks Alerian, makes perfect sense to me. Units 'can' use Sicarius' LD when making Morale and/or pinning tests. This implies that the choice is made when those respective tests are taken. As such, Sic's LD is not a constant value for all units.

Weaken Resolve in no way implies that it works retroactively upon a unit's LD, after they choose to use Sicarius' LD.

So to sum up:

1. Psker BS squad successfully uses WR on Marine unit A, reducing their current LD value to 3.
2. Marine unit A suffers enough casualties to trigger a Morale test at the end of the Shooting phase.
3. At the end of the Shooting Phase, all applicable Morale tests must now be taken.
4. Marine Unit A chooses to use Sicarius' LD value, replacing the reduced leadership caused by WR.
5. WR does not retroactively apply to the new LD value allowing Marine unit A to test with LD 10.

-Yad

Eight Ball wrote:

Choose one enemy unit within 36" and line of sight of the Psyker Battle Squad. For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utlising the power (to a minimum of 2).

don_mondo wrote:Gee whiz, I'm the Guard player and here I am supporting the position that they get Sicarius' LD 10, unchanged by Weaken Resolve. Something is wrong with this scenario.............

To me, the WR is not a modifier, it's a temporary change in the unit's stat line. If it were a modifier (like losing combat by 2), then it would apply to any LD used by the unit.

Wait, why isn't this a modifier? It says that it reduces (modifies) by X amount of psykers...the exact same as losing combat by X wounds, (just this is by # of psykers, not wounds of course) sounds like a modifier to me....

I would concede that Weaken Resolve can be seen as a modifier, but I don't see a logical argument that a modifier to a units leadership is carried over to another unit.

Weaken Resolve modifies the units leadership, but the unit can choose to use another models leadership. Therefore the model is ultimately not testing on it's own leadership.

I just don't see the argument that a modifier to a units leadership is translated to another models leadership.

Eight Ball wrote:

Choose one enemy unit within 36" and line of sight of the Psyker Battle Squad. For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utlising the power (to a minimum of 2).

don_mondo wrote:Gee whiz, I'm the Guard player and here I am supporting the position that they get Sicarius' LD 10, unchanged by Weaken Resolve. Something is wrong with this scenario.............

To me, the WR is not a modifier, it's a temporary change in the unit's stat line. If it were a modifier (like losing combat by 2), then it would apply to any LD used by the unit.

Wait, why isn't this a modifier? It says that it reduces (modifies) by X amount of psykers...the exact same as losing combat by X wounds, (just this is by # of psykers, not wounds of course) sounds like a modifier to me....

Weaken Resolve reduces the actual LD value of the models in the unit, it is not a plus or minus to the die roll.

Mahu wrote:

Eight Ball wrote:

Choose one enemy unit within 36" and line of sight of the Psyker Battle Squad. For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utlising the power (to a minimum of 2).

don_mondo wrote:Gee whiz, I'm the Guard player and here I am supporting the position that they get Sicarius' LD 10, unchanged by Weaken Resolve. Something is wrong with this scenario.............

To me, the WR is not a modifier, it's a temporary change in the unit's stat line. If it were a modifier (like losing combat by 2), then it would apply to any LD used by the unit.

Wait, why isn't this a modifier? It says that it reduces (modifies) by X amount of psykers...the exact same as losing combat by X wounds, (just this is by # of psykers, not wounds of course) sounds like a modifier to me....

I would concede that Weaken Resolve can be seen as a modifier, but I don't see a logical argument that a modifier to a units leadership is carried over to another unit.

Weaken Resolve modifies the units leadership, but the unit can choose to use another models leadership. Therefore the model is ultimately not testing on it's own leadership.

I just don't see the argument that a modifier to a units leadership is translated to another models leadership.

If it were a modifier, it would carry over. Lose the combat by 4, your Morale test suffers a -4 modifier to whatever LD you choose to use, your own or Sicarius'. That's a modifier. That's why I think it's important that we realize that WR is not a modifier, but an actual, albeit temporary, change to the models statline.

How is a "actual, albeit temporary, change to the models statline" not a modifier?

I'm in agreement with Mondo, and I play Guard too!

Wasn' there a whole thread on Stubborn and Weaken Resolve? My take from it is that Stubborn ignores negative modifiers to a Morale Test, but because WR changes the leadership, you roll against the lower value...

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:How is a "actual, albeit temporary, change to the models statline" not a modifier?

Ok.lt's try this again. WR modifies/lowers/"whetever term you want to use" the target unit's LD. It does not modify or give minuses to LD based checks.

RoB lets you "use" Sic's LD instead of your unit's LD, when you take a morale check.

The targeted unit's LD is lowered by WR; however, Sic's is unchanged.

The unit can elect "use" Sic's LD10 instead of their own, now "weakend", LD.

There in nothing in WR's rules that even remotely suggest that it effects the usage of another unit's LD, through RoB.

Could a Moderator please correct the mis-spelling in the title of this thread?

You don't need a mod. Just edit your OP and change the title.

Mahu wrote:It's been a long time, but here is my logical argument:

P1: Weaken Resolve lowers the Leadership of the target unit
P2: A unit may use another model's leadership
C: Though Weaken Resolve lowers the leadership of the unit, it doesn't affect the leadership the unit is testing on

The argument that weaken resolve is a modifier doesn't make since as none is implied. Weaken resolve changes the leadership characteristic on the unit for a period of time, but rities of battle presents the option for a unit to use another models leadership. Now if weaken resolved is used against Sicarus, that is a different story.

I have to agree with this arguement. If WR was stated something like 'target units suffer a penalty to all leadership tests...', I would feel different. But, based on the relevant quotes, I think it's OK to use Sic's Ld 10. Man, I may have to start an UM army.

So then you are saying that if Sic is on the table I can use LD 10 regardless of any and all modifiers/rules that affect LD?

What about if Sic's LD has been reduced to 7 cause of Pariahs, does that mean your whole army suddenly becomes LD 7?

So then you are saying that if Sic is on the table I can use LD 10 regardless of any and all modifiers/rules that affect LD?

For the most part, and I haven't examined every rule interaction, I would say yes. It all depends on how it is worded. Sic's rules clearly state that a model or unit may test on his leadership. So in every case of the units leadership being reduced, then they can "opt out" of their own leadership and use Sic's instead.

Now if a rule is pretty clear that no matter where the leadership stat is coming from they are still receiving certain modifiers, then that would be a different issue.

But Weaken Resolve specifically says the unit leaderships is reduced. Now if it said something to the effect that "for any morale, leadership, and pinning tests that the unit has to take are reduced by the number of psykers, etc." then that would be different.

I guess the difference I am trying to explain here, is that there is a difference between modifying the units stat and modifying the test taken.

What about if Sic's LD has been reduced to 7 cause of Pariahs, does that mean your whole army suddenly becomes LD 7?

Rities of Battle is optional. This is important, especially with combat tactics. But an IG player can easily WR Sic's unit and then WR the target unit and get around all of this.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:So then you are saying that if Sic is on the table I can use LD 10 regardless of any and all modifiers/rules that affect LD?

What about if Sic's LD has been reduced to 7 cause of Pariahs, does that mean your whole army suddenly becomes LD 7?

Yes, if Sic is on the table your entire army can CHOOSE to use his LD. If the modifiers are only to LD stats, then RoB keeps them at a full LD10; however, if you are taking modifiers LD based checks, then you would take them at 10 minus whatever modifier the check requires, such as penalties for losing combat.

In scenario you are presenting, however, you are forgetting the part where it says that units CAN use Sic's LD...not that they MUST. Everyone would still use their own LD. Of course, if a unit wanted to, they could to use Sic's LD7 from Pariahs...which would be stupid.

Basically, if you want to drop the leadership of units in a army that contains Sic (or any captain with RoB) you must also drop the LD of the HQ.

So you're saying Sic is better than stubborn. If you lose combat by 8 wounds, are you still testing on Ld10? I would disagree with this.

kadun wrote:So you're saying Sic is better than stubborn. If you lose combat by 8 wounds, are you still testing on Ld10? I would disagree with this.

That is exactly what they are saying. It's utter Rubbish.

KeithGatchalian wrote:Wasn' there a whole thread on Stubborn and Weaken Resolve? My take from it is that Stubborn ignores negative modifiers to a Morale Test, but because WR changes the leadership, you roll against the lower value...

Yeah this just blows my mind.

So I follow the thread on stubborn versus weaken resolve, disagreeing the whole way, but accepting the consensus. Even though there are specific values labeled "modifiers" in the main rulebook, the gestalt chose to consider a base change to the value of leadership a 'modifier'. i was all set to accept that and move on.

But now the consensus is that "using someone else's leadership value" equates to 'making that leadership value your leadership value'?

Sicarius has leadership 10. until he gets hit with Weaken resolve, his leadership is 10.

If I want to use SICARIUS' leadership for my next test, because mine has been knocked down to 2. I'm using HIS leadership, my own leadership is not becoming 10.

I don't even know where the ork mob rule versus weaken resolve discussion ended up, and I'm not really interested at this point. I haven't agreed with anything in the consensus so far, and I'm very comfortable with my own interpretations. I'm just going to walk away from this discussion.

My purpose for posting this however, is just to let other people reading the thread know. If you aren't agreeing with anything so far, don't worry, you aren't crazy... or alone.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:You don't need a mod. Just edit your OP and change the title.

Thanks. Done.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

kadun wrote:So you're saying Sic is better than stubborn. If you lose combat by 8 wounds, are you still testing on Ld10? I would disagree with this.

That is exactly what they are saying. It's utter Rubbish.

No, thats not what they are saying.

They are saying that losing close combat confers a modifier to the following Break Test. A modifier to the test itself. Not a modifier to the stat as such.
They still use Sicarius' leadership of 10, but when taking the test the modifiers are applied to the dice roll and not the stat.
(I dont even know if this is true. Are the modifiers from a lost CC a modifier to the test or the stat?)

When being effected by Weaken Resolve the leadership stat itself is modified, not any subsequent tests.
Therefore their leadership would indeed be reduced, but come test-time, the unit in question takes the test on Sicarius' Leadership (which isnt effected by Weaken Resolve).


One modifies the test, the other modifies the stat. That I believe is the distinction being made.


(Note, I might not agree with that interpretation. But I believe I have at least understood the case being presented.)

Mahu wrote:I disagree with Yakface on this.

PG. 47 of the IG Codex:

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utilizing the power (to a minimum of 2)."

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

It's been a long time, but here is my logical argument:

P1: Weaken Resolve lowers the Leadership of the target unit
P2: A unit may use another model's leadership
C: Though Weaken Resolve lowers the leadership of the unit, it doesn't affect the leadership the unit is testing on

The argument that weaken resolve is a modifier doesn't make since as none is implied. Weaken resolve changes the leadership characteristic on the unit for a period of time, but rities of battle presents the option for a unit to use another models leadership. Now if weaken resolved is used against Sicarus, that is a different story.

Your argument is incomplete because it fails to show in the rules how Ld is tested upon when taking a Morale test, which is where I think you are ultimately incorrect.

Units have a "Leadership Value" which is what Morale Checks are made against(pg 43). What constitutes a units Ld value is normally the highest Ld value of the models in the unit. However, Sicarus allows Space Marine units to USE his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests.

It is very important to note that Sicarus's ability does not REPLACE the "unit's Ld value". The only thing Sicarus does is to allow the unit to *use* his Ld value, which is Ld10. So the unit's 'Ld value' for the morale or pinning check is then Ld10.

Now, the Weaken Resolve power does NOT JUST say it only reduces the "models" Ld values in the unit it is affecting. It says "For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers. . ."

So as a blanket statement it lowers the "unit's Leadership" for the rest of the turn. Does this mean the models in the unit have their Leadership values lowered? Yep, because they are part of the unit. But it also means it affects the unit's "Leadership value" as a whole as well because it doesn't say it just applies to the individual model's Ld values.

So when the unit takes a morale check, they use Sicarus's Ld10 to make the unit's Ld value 10 for the test. However, for the rest of the turn the unit is affected by Weaken Resolve and therefore the unit's Ld value is reduced before taking the test.


Something important to note is that if you don't accept that Sicarus's Ld becomes the "unit's Ld value" then you also have to accept that *any* morale check modifiers (such as the modifiers for losing combat) would not then affect that test as well. This is because the rules for Morale Check modifiers (pg 43) state: "This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to Morale checks, which can reduce the unit's Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

So if you are (incorrectly, IMO) saying that Sicarus's Ld is somehow used outside of the 'unit's Ld value' (which really isn't possible because all the rules for morale checks are written using the "unit's Ld value") then you also have to accept that all Ld modifiers of any sort would not apply as well.

I still disagree.

There is a distinct difference in what is being used here. There is a difference between the "unit's" leadership value and the value the unit is testing on.

What you are implying is that when a unit uses another model/units leadership value then the new leadership value retroactively becomes the units, which no implication exists in the rules.

It's like this, I have a tractor and you have a tractor. Something happens to the tractor that I own. Because I would use your tractor doesn't make that tractor mine.

So if you are (incorrectly, IMO) saying that Sicarus's Ld is somehow used outside of the 'unit's Ld value' (which really isn't possible because all the rules for morale checks are written using the "unit's Ld value") then you also have to accept that all Ld modifiers of any sort would not apply as well.

This is exactly what I am saying. You would have to prove that when a unit uses another units leadership then that value becomes the unit's leadership value, and I don't see that in the rites of battle rules.

Mahu wrote:

So if you are (incorrectly, IMO) saying that Sicarus's Ld is somehow used outside of the 'unit's Ld value' (which really isn't possible because all the rules for morale checks are written using the "unit's Ld value") then you also have to accept that all Ld modifiers of any sort would not apply as well.

This is exactly what I am saying. You would have to prove that when a unit uses another units leadership then that value becomes the unit's leadership value, and I don't see that in the rites of battle rules.

So your position is that Rites of Battle is better than stubborn, i.e. ignoring modifiers due to losing combat, ordanance barrage pinning checks, weaken resolve, etc?

I disagree for the reasons Yakface cited.

So instead of modifying LD9 its modifying Ld10.

Cope.

shrug

This talk of allowing space marines leadership to be substituted for Sic's leadership seems to be thought of wrongly.

-The term 'Leadership' refers to the number below the Ld colum in a units profile, therefor the addition of the term value is redundant.

-The marines are still making the test. Nothing changes that. They are not allowing thier test to be made by som-thing else. It is still that unit with all previous effects and statuses.

-That test can only be made once & the choice to use Sic's leadership (i.e The No.10, which replaces the marines Leadership of numbers 8 or 9) is made in response to needing to take a test. Deciding to use Sic's leadership (the No.10) doesnt replace anything other than the previous number under the Ld colum


Read the above three points before replying, if you please.

I admit it will never be played the way I am argueing, and I even played a Sicarius List versus Weaken Resolve on Saturday, and I conceded to the majority opinion.

But my argument is basically an English language one. It's all about possessives.

The "unit's" leadership is a stat line owned by that unit.

Sicarius's Leadership is a stat line owned by the Sicarius Model.

They are two different things. And the rules for rites of battle do not indicate a transfer of possession.

-The term 'Leadership' refers to the number below the Ld colum in a units profile, therefor the addition of the term value is redundant.

Not necessarily. "Leadership" refers to the portion of the stat line. "Value" refers to the number presented in that column, though I don't see how this applies as neither rule refers to the value.

-The marines are still making the test. Nothing changes that. They are not allowing thier test to be made by som-thing else. It is still that unit with all previous effects and statuses.

Yes, the Marines are making the test, but that doesn't make Sicarius' Leadership their Leadership. Like I said there is no transfer of possession with use., unless you think everything you use instantly become yours when you use it.

-That test can only be made once & the choice to use Sic's leadership (i.e The No.10, which replaces the marines Leadership of numbers 8 or 9) is made in response to needing to take a test. Deciding to use Sic's leadership (the No.10) doesnt replace anything other than the previous number under the Ld colum

Read the rules again. There is no replacement inferred.

The unit is simply "opting out" of using their Leadership to use the Leadership of another model for the test.

The rules don't say that the Unit's leadership becomes 10. It doesn't say that you use Sicarius' Leadership as your own. Two ways they could have easily worded it to avoid this situation.

No, it simply says that the unit may use his leadership for the test.

His Leadership doesn't change because the unit's has changed.

Yak I disagree with you. I know you don't like Space Marines and to be honest I think you are a bit biased here. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the unit is using Sicarius' leadership value not their own but you are insisting that for some reason it becomes their own. Only if Sicarius was targeted would you subtract from his leadership of 10.

G

Once again, RaW is difficult to interpret, but anyone trying to use the unmodified LD10 in this situation would be an asshat, and I'd not bother to play them again.

Weakened Resolve would modify the unit itself leadership. HOWEVER! The captain isn't IN THE UNIT, so they may still borrow his unmodified leadership due to him not being in the unit.

I think the only argument here is that if Weaken Resolve is used against Sicarius, does that negative modifier affect his combat tactics, aka. affect everyone who wishes to use his Leadership. And also in this case, I would say that his borrowed leadership also gets lowered.

Fifty wrote:Once again, RaW is difficult to interpret, but anyone trying to use the unmodified LD10 in this situation would be an asshat, and I'd not bother to play them again.

Why would they be an asshat? If your opponent has the Book of Saint Lucius in the witch hunters codex, is he being an asshat for using an item that gives him unmodified leadership 9?

Honestly, lets put it into real life terms.


Marine Squad: "O NOES! I am weakened by the psychic attack!" *Sicarius isn't going to go: "O NO! Somehow my leadership is somehow affected due to this squad being scared!" *uhhh no

- Even though "real life" warhammer situations aren't that accurate, its just plain dumb to think that someone elses leadership is effected by a unit that got scared. Say someone got shot at and ducked to the ground. Would the commander at the back of the force go O MY GOD THAT GUY IS BEING SHOT AT NOW I AM SCARED! No, thats not his own life, why should he be scared? He would give that guy inspiration to "go on" because he didn't almost die.

And since the psychic attack states that it lowers the targets leadership, how does it affect the borrowed leadership? It isn't the targets leadership in the first place! Its kinda like that BosL or the Vox Caster unit, they arn't using their OWN leadership which the psychic attack effects!

EzeKK wrote:Weakened Resolve would modify the unit itself leadership. HOWEVER! The captain isn't IN THE UNIT, so they may still borrow his unmodified leadership due to him not being in the unit.

I think the only argument here is that if Weaken Resolve is used against Sicarius, does that negative modifier affect his combat tactics, aka. affect everyone who wishes to use his Leadership. And also in this case, I would say that his borrowed leadership also gets lowered.

Rities of Battle is optional.

I think this can be even further explained with the difference to "Leadership modifiers to Morale checks" and an ability which just changes a units LD value to a certain number.

What I mean to say is Rites of Battle is only used when making a Morale Check or Pinning Check correct?

The modifier would indeed affect a unit under Rites of Battle as it does replace the unit's LD value. So a lost assault would cause a Unit to be at 10 - x for testing.

But, for any ability that *just* changes the LD value of the unit in question without a morale check is indeed different. As that new value would temporarily replace the original.

Now, with that unit (and its new lower LD value) has to make a morale check, you will note that this is not a "LD modifier to the Morale check" as quoted earlier, but a LD that has already been modified. In such a case the unit 'borrows' the Captain's LD value and now has a brand new (higher) LD value to use against the Morale check in question plus any modifiers to *that* morale check. But the unit does not keep the Captain's new LD, and may only use it when making morale/pinning checks. And so once the morale check is done, would then revert back to the lowered version.

My question is this (I don't own the new guard codex yet). Is Weaken resolve a flat modifier to a LD value with no morale test, or is it a morale test with a LD modifier?

The distinction is important with Rites of Battle.

WR is just a flat modifier to LD...not to LD tests....and that is my whole point as to why RoB will counter it.

Again...
1.WR lowers target units LD for the remainder of the turn
2. Target unit is fired upon, loses 25%, and is forced to make a morale check.
3.The target unit now chooses to use Sic's LD 10, instead of their lowered LD.
4. The target unit's test is made on Sic's LD10

RoB does not say that it "replaces" a units LD, so please everyone stop trying to say that it does.

RoB says that a units "can use" Sic's LD, instead of their own, for Morale and Pinning tests.

WR does not say that it imposes a penalty to Morale checks, so the test would be made at Sic's LD 10, without penalty.

Therefore, the only way to beat RoB with WR, is to hit Sic with WR, thus lowering his LD.

Also, for those that are trying to say that I (an others) think you would take all tests with LD10, without penalty, you are wrong. I have said repeatedly that if their are penalties for the test itself (such as losing CC), then the test would be made at 10 minus all penalties. Unfortunately for WR, it only lowers the LD of a unit, rather than giving penalites to all tests the unit takes. Thanks to RoB, a unit never has to test on their own LD, so WR has no effect until WR is cast on Sicarius.

padixon wrote:

My question is this (I don't own the new guard codex yet). Is Weaken resolve a flat modifier to a LD value with no morale test, or is it a morale test with a LD modifier?

The distinction is important with Rites of Battle.

It is a flat modifier to leadership value, it doesn't cause a moral check for all I know. So it reduces their leadership value by X amount for the whole turn (maybe the rest of the game?)

And heres an amazing tip (Thanks to Stelek!). Take an inquisitor. Then take a Callidus assassin with the neuro shredder. Use Psycher Battle Squads to lower the units leadership to 2. Then, tank shock them into flamer formation and hit them with the callidus assassin. Since the Neural Shredder has STR8, it automatically hits due to it being a flamer, and wounds on a 2+ and causes ID because the units Leadership is counted as its toughness. It also ignores cover saves since it acts as a flame weapon. This will basically make Nob Bikerz cry. The weapon Ignores FNP and auto-kills everything it wounds (that fails its invuln save). Then, the squad is sure to run, its leadership 2!!! Then proceed to follow the nob bikers with something like a rhino till they run off the board.

Say it hits 6 Nob Bikers. 5 will wound and 4.17 will die if they have Cybork, thats below half strength. Bye bye!

Here are the rules again. as people seem to be forgetting:

PG. 47 of the IG Codex:

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utilizing the power (to a minimum of 2)."

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

Your argument is incomplete because it fails to show in the rules how Ld is tested upon when taking a Morale test, which is where I think you are ultimately incorrect.

PG. 43

"Morale represents the grit, determination, or (sometimes) plain stupidity of warriors in action. Like all other Leadership-based tests, Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit’s Leadership value. If the score is equal to or under the unit’s Leadership value, the test is passed and the unit does not suffer any ill effects – their nerve has held. However, if the score rolled is higher, then the test is failed and the unit will immediately fall back, as described over the page."

So per normal, you take the unit's leadership and roll the dice.

Units have a "Leadership Value" which is what Morale Checks are made against(pg 43). What constitutes a units Ld value is normally the highest Ld value of the models in the unit. However, Sicarus allows Space Marine units to USE his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests.

That is correct.

It is very important to note that Sicarus's ability does not REPLACE the "unit's Ld value". The only thing Sicarus does is to allow the unit to *use* his Ld value, which is Ld10. So the unit's 'Ld value' for the morale or pinning check is then Ld10.

The Unit's Leadership hasn't changed from their Stat line, they are using another value for the test. If Sicarius' ability was a REPLACEMENT then we would be having a different argument.

Now, the Weaken Resolve power does NOT JUST say it only reduces the "models" Ld values in the unit it is affecting. It says "For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers. . ."

Yes, the Leadership for the UNIT is reduced.

So as a blanket statement it lowers the "unit's Leadership" for the rest of the turn. Does this mean the models in the unit have their Leadership values lowered? Yep, because they are part of the unit. But it also means it affects the unit's "Leadership value" as a whole as well because it doesn't say it just applies to the individual model's Ld values.

Again, nobody is contesting that. The Leadership value for the UNIT is reduced.

So when the unit takes a morale check, they use Sicarus's Ld10 to make the unit's Ld value 10 for the test. However, for the rest of the turn the unit is affected by Weaken Resolve and therefore the unit's Ld value is reduced before taking the test.

This is where the argument falls apart and this is where I am questioning you on.

Here is the rule again:

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

Regardless of the UNIT'S Leadership value they are taking the TEST on Sicarius' LEADERSHIP.

Something important to note is that if you don't accept that Sicarus's Ld becomes the "unit's Ld value" then you also have to accept that *any* morale check modifiers (such as the modifiers for losing combat) would not then affect that test as well. This is because the rules for Morale Check modifiers (pg 43) state: "This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to Morale checks, which can reduce the unit's Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

Let's examine those rules then:

PG 44

"A unit that is locked in close combat does not have to take Morale checks for taking 25% casualties."

"Units that are overrun by an enemy tank may wisely decide it’s time to abandon their position and fall back. If a tank reaches an enemy unit’s position then the unit must take a Morale check to see whether or not it falls back. For a more complete explanation of how tank shock works, see the Vehicle rules on page 68."

"Units taking this Morale Check suffer a -1 Ld modifier for each wound their side has lost the combat by."

Furthermore:

"This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to Morale checks, which can reduce the unit’s Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

So every rule tells you when to take a Morale test and in the case of modifiers in an assault, the modifier is to the TEST.

So if you are (incorrectly, IMO) saying that Sicarus's Ld is somehow used outside of the 'unit's Ld value' (which really isn't possible because all the rules for morale checks are written using the "unit's Ld value") then you also have to accept that all Ld modifiers of any sort would not apply as well.

Correct, Morale Tests are taken using the Units Leadership Value. Rities of Battle allows the Unit to use a Leadership Value that isn't their own.

One more time:

PG. 47 of the IG Codex:

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utilizing the power (to a minimum of 2)."

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

There is a difference between the Leadership VALUE and the Morale TEST.

Weaken Resolve affects the Unit's Leadership VALUE.

Rities of Battle allows the Unit to TEST on a Leadership VALUE that is not their Leadership VALUE.

It is not that new of a tactic and can be done without PSB.

G

Leadership Tests, P.8, Rulebook wrote:Tests made against the Leadership characteristic (like Morale checks) are different from other tests. In the case of a Leadership test, roll 2D6 (two dice added together, as explained earlier). If the result is equal to or less than the model's Leadership, the test is passed.

If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value.

Modifiers may apply to the Leadership characteristic in particularly trying circumstances - for example, -1 if the unit suffered wounds from an Ordnance barrage weapon, as described later.

This passage from the rulebook explains the relation between the Leadership value of a unit and Leadership Tests, such that a unit normally uses the Leadership characteristic of the model with the highest Leadership value for any Leadership tests.

Moreover, modifiers to Leadership tests are to the Leadership characteristic that the unit is using, rather than to the values on the dice being rolled.

Does this suggest that Weaken Resolve cast by 8 Sanctioned Psyckers reduces the Leadership of a squad of Tactical Space Marines under the command of Captain Sicarius to 2?

Does this suggest that Weaken Resolve cast by 8 Sanctioned Psyckers reduces the Leadership of a squad of Tactical Space Marines under the command of Captain Sicarius to 2?

Yes, it lowers the LD of the squad to 2, but they will not test on their LD 2; they will instead test on Sic's LD 10...because they can use his LD instead of their own.

Repeating this is getting rather old. The target Tac squad may have had it's own LD dropped to 2; however, they can choose to test on Sic's LD, which is 10. Sic's LD does not replace their LD; they are simply using Sic's LD10, so all tests would be made on LD 10. If WR modified morale tests, then it would bypass RoB, but it doesn't. It merely modifies the LD of a unit...however, such a unit can always use Sic's LD< no matter what their LD stat is.

I'm sorry if this is getting old Alerian, but isn't it the case that the passages from the section on Leaderships indicate that a unit's Leadership is whichever Leadership characteristic it is using?

In that case, wouldn't the Tactical squad have its Leadership regardless of whether it is using the highest Leadership characteristic present in the unit, or Ld10 from some other model's Rites of Battle?

The point is that Sic's LD 10 NEVER replaces the LD of the unit. That is the misunderstanding that I think many people are making.

RoB only allows the USE of Sic's LD, when a morale test is made. Also, using Sic's LD is not mandatory; it a choice that a unit can make.

If WR forced penalites to morale tests, then the unit would have penalties even when using Sic's LD (such as from Ordnance Barrage, losinc CC, etc.) However, that is not the way WR reads. It simply drops the unit's LD stat.

Then , the wording of RoB allows a unit to opt out of using their own LD (whatever that LD might be) and use Sic's instead. Nothing in WR's wording suggests that it would lower another unit's LD, nor that it forces penalties to morale check roles.

Alerian:

Okay, but what confuses me is that it seems the Leadership Tests section of the rules states that units do not have a Leadership value. Instead, that section of the rules seems to state that units use the Leadership characteristic of particular models when called upon to take Leadership tests.

If units do not have a Leadership characteristic of their own, and instead use the Leadership characteristic of a model, usually a constituent model, then isn't the idea that Rites of Battle allows a squad of Space Marines to replace their own Ld with that of the Captain beside the point?

Or, rather, doesn't it mean that a unit's Ld is whatever Ld it is using for Leadership tests such as Morale checks and Pinning tests?

In that case, wouldn't that mean that whatever Ld the unit was using while affected by Weaken Resolve, that Ld will be affected by Weaken Resolve because it is the unit's Ld?

Nurglitch wrote:Alerian:

If units do not have a Leadership characteristic of their own, and instead use the Leadership characteristic of a model, usually a constituent model, then isn't the idea that Rites of Battle allows a squad of Space Marines to replace their own Ld with that of the Captain beside the point?

NO..RoB doesn't replace the SMs LD...that is the flaw in your (and others who are sharing your view) logic. You are reading something into RoB that isn't there. A unit "can use" Sic's LD, which is LD10... NO REPLACEMENT takes place. For this reason, the rest of your logic is flawed.

It doesn't matter how you think the "idea" RoB works. It matters what the specific wording of RoB and WR actually say.
By RAW, RoB gets around WR, unless you also cast WR on Sicarius. Whether it was intended or not, the wording of WR and RoB make this the case.

Just wanted to reiterate yakface's arguments as I don't feel they have been adequately addressed by the opposite opinion.

yakface wrote:
Your argument is incomplete because it fails to show in the rules how Ld is tested upon when taking a Morale test, which is where I think you are ultimately incorrect.

Units have a "Leadership Value" which is what Morale Checks are made against(pg 43). What constitutes a units Ld value is normally the highest Ld value of the models in the unit. However, Sicarus allows Space Marine units to USE his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests.

It is very important to note that Sicarus's ability does not REPLACE the "unit's Ld value". The only thing Sicarus does is to allow the unit to *use* his Ld value, which is Ld10. So the unit's 'Ld value' for the morale or pinning check is then Ld10.

Now, the Weaken Resolve power does NOT JUST say it only reduces the "models" Ld values in the unit it is affecting. It says "For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers. . ."

So as a blanket statement it lowers the "unit's Leadership" for the rest of the turn. Does this mean the models in the unit have their Leadership values lowered? Yep, because they are part of the unit. But it also means it affects the unit's "Leadership value" as a whole as well because it doesn't say it just applies to the individual model's Ld values.

So when the unit takes a morale check, they use Sicarus's Ld10 to make the unit's Ld value 10 for the test. However, for the rest of the turn the unit is affected by Weaken Resolve and therefore the unit's Ld value is reduced before taking the test.


Something important to note is that if you don't accept that Sicarus's Ld becomes the "unit's Ld value" then you also have to accept that *any* morale check modifiers (such as the modifiers for losing combat) would not then affect that test as well. This is because the rules for Morale Check modifiers (pg 43) state: "This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to Morale checks, which can reduce the unit's Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

So if you are (incorrectly, IMO) saying that Sicarus's Ld is somehow used outside of the 'unit's Ld value' (which really isn't possible because all the rules for morale checks are written using the "unit's Ld value") then you also have to accept that all Ld modifiers of any sort would not apply as well.

I'll also add that the Book of St. Lucius specifically mentions to use the model's unmodified leadership for tests. Wording that is not present here.

Kadun, I have answered that question multiple times...

There is a HUGE difference to a straight modification to a statline, and a modification when taking morale checks. A morale check penalty applies AS you take a check, and no matter what LD you use, there will be a penalty, such as losing CC (unless you are Stubborn). A straight stat modifier from WR takes place PRIOR to making any tests.

This means that if your LD is lowered by WR, and then you choose to "use" (not replace) another Sic's LD to make a test, the test would be made on his unmodifed LD10. It is the exact same thing as facing Pariahs. If you go by Yak's interpretation, then RoB doesn't work against them either...and yet RoB has worked against them for years. So you must make a choice, since both Pariahs and WR work as a straight LD reduction, either RoB works on both, or niether, as they function in the same manner. Precedence sides with RoB working.

If RoB stated that it "replaced" a units LD, I would agree comepletely with Yak's interpretation. Likewise, if WR stated that it modified LD based checks, rather that a statline, I would agree. However, the wording of RoB and WR, when combined/compared do not allow for Yak's interpretation...at least by RAW.

Thank you, Alerian. You have made the argument better then I have.

Alerian:

I guess the problem that people are having is that the Leadership Tests section of the rules states that units use models' Ld characteristics, that a unit's Ld is the Ld characteristic it is using to take a Leadership test.

So using Sicarius' Ld is, according to the Leadership Tests rules, the same thing as replacing that unit's Ld with that of Sicarius. Either way, the fact that units use Ld characteristics to take Leadership Tests means that whatever Ld characteristic a unit uses is the Ld characteristic that a unit has.

RoB is a specific Codex rule that alsows Morale tests to function in a different manner than the BGB, because it allows a unit to "use" a LD that is outside of their unit. Because of this, quoting the BGB on how a unit normally makes Morale Checks with it's own LD is irrelevent. The precedence of Pariahs vs. RoB (both Sicarius and DA Captains), with RoB working against Pariahs, confirms that this "replacing" idea is wrong, so I wish everyone would stop trying to use it.

It appears that certain people would rather add words (especially the word "replace") and interpretations into this discussion, rather than actually looking at the RAW and precednece.

RAW and precedence (again, look at how Pariahs vs. RoB works) backs up my interpretation, so I an leaving this discussion. Good luck, guys!

Alerian:

Rites of Battle, Cato Sicarius, P.85, Codex: Space Marines wrote:If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests.

Regardless of whether a unit is using a Ld internal to itself, outside of itself, or the result of some other condition, the fact is that, according to the rules, whatever Ld a unit uses is that unit's Ld.

So it seems that pointing out how the rulebook construes unit Ld is important because according to the rules a unit's Ld is the Ld it is using. Hence if the unit is using Sicarius' Ld, then its Ld is Ld10 and that Ld10 is affected by Weaken Resolve.

This doesn't appear to be a matter of "Codex trumps Rulebook" or anything else, since the "RAW" of the matter appears to be plain: Unit Ld = Ld used.

Maybe I'm the "certain people" you're referring to here, but I have yet to see where the rules state that a unit's Ld is immune to modification by Weaken Resolve because it is using a non-member model's Ld as its unit Ld.

Please, somebody, post the actual rule that says "a unit using a leadership stat, that leadership stat becomes the unit's stat".

Please. Prove us wrong, by RAW, do so, and end this debate.

The unit uses a different LD.

The unit has a penalty to their LD.

The rules in the book that actually cover this (already quoted, relating to upgrade characters) actual situation says the modifiers apply to the adjusted LD.

What is incorrect there? I miss things sometimes, and that must be the case here.

Leadership Tests, P.8, Rulebook wrote:If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value.

Modifiers may apply to the Leadership characteristic in particularly trying circumstances - for example, -1 if the unit suffered wounds from an Ordnance barrage weapon, as described later.

This passage from the rulebook explains the relation between the Leadership value of a unit and Leadership Tests, such that the Leadership value of a unit is whichever model's Leadership that unit is using to take Leadership tests.

OK...Nurglitch brought me back in.

Please, quit trying to use a rule about LD TESTS when WR only lowers the LD statof a unit. There is a huge difference to lowering a LD stat, and giving penalties to LD checks. You are trying to make one rule say something that it doesn't. Since WR's penalties only apply to base LD, NOT LD tests, you are quoting an inapplicable rule.

WR and Pariahs both lower the LD stat, while Ordnance Barrage and losing CC give modifiers to LD based checks....there is a huge difference between these two things. WR and pariahs would allow a unit to be at LD 10 (from Sic) when testing, while Ordnance Barrage and Losing CC would force a unit to test at LD10, minus all penalties.

I have said many times that if WR said that it's modifier was used for LD test you would be right; however you are wrong. WR does a straight reduction to the LD stat of a given unit...not to all LD based tests that they make (read the actual rule for WR). This is why your logic is flawed.

RoB allows a unit to use a different LD stat..namely Sic's. Since you keep trying to quote about penalties to LD checks, show me where WR states that it gives such penalties to checks; otherwise, give it up.

@Alerian:
It doesn't obviously. WR does not modify the dice roll for LD based checks (Morale / Pinning). It directly reduces the LD statline number by however many Sanctioned Psykers are in Psyker BS squad (at the time WR was used).

If the targeted squad is forced to make a pin check, or if, at the end of the Shooting Phase, the targeted squad is forced to make a Morale check (i.e., break test), the targeted squad can now elect to check against Sicarius' LD of 10.

This 'usage', as Alerian has suggested, does not replace the targeted squad's already reduced LD. Think of it as a pointer. Normally, when the squad is called on to make an LD check they reference their own LD statline and make the test off of that. This time, instead of seeing just their own statline, they also see a pointer to Sicarius' statline. They may then choose to check against this value instead. The value is never transfered to the targeted unit, it always stays with Sicarius. Hence, they can make a check against LD 10.

Alerian wrote:OK...Nurglitch brought me back in.
"WR and Pariahs both lower the LD stat, while Ordnance Barrage and losing CC give modifiers to LD based checks"

As much as iv been agreeing with you on this, looking into the wording i think your wrong.
from the book...

Losing an Assault
"Units taking this morale check suffer a -1 LD modifier for each wound their side has lost combat by."

So the modifier is to the LD not the roll itself. If this is so, then unless the LD 10 is now the units actual LD value for the test, as in it replaces their LD characteristic while taking that test, then the assault modifier would not apply and they would take the test on LD 10 no matter the modifiers. I think this supports the replacement belief and thus WR reduced even the obtained value.

Shrag... I said that anything that give penalties to LD based tests would work against RoB (losing CC, Ordnance Barrage, etc.)...that isn't the point.

I am saying that WR is a straight statline reduction (like Pariahs), and RoB allows you to use a different unit's statline when testing.

All of these rules quotes that refer to modifiers when taking a test DO NOT APPLY, since WR does not say that it gives modifiers to LD based tests, just that it lowers a statline. There is a huge difference between a straight staline reduction, and a modifier when taking a test.

This is why RoB trumps WR...it allows you to use a different unit's stat for morale /pinning tests, and WR only effects the target unit's base LD stat.

Again... RoB has ALWAYS worked against Pariahs, which is a straight LD stat change, just like WR. No one has shown why RoB should work against Pariahs, but not against WR... Instead, people keep trying to bring up rules about LD based TEST modifiers, rather than dealing with a LD statline reduction.

Thats my point, for the test, the LD 10 BECOMES the new LD of the unit, otherwise the -1 penalties in assault would not apply. WR modifies the LD value, not what it is when the power is used, but for the entire turn whatever that LD value is, is reduced. So the question is whether or not the new LD becomes the units LD value or if they simply use the number value, while taking the test.

Basically my reading is that unless the unit changes their LD value to that of the other unit, then assault penalties WILL NOT apply and thus they LD for tests will always be 10 regardless of modifiers. Which might be the case, but that seems pretty crazy of a power.

"Pinning tests caused by ordnance barrages are taken with a -1 Ld modifier."

Nothing about modifiers to tests here, just a -1 to Ld

Pinning tests are a LD based tests...

This means that the -1 penalty is caused when the TEST is taken, so it is not a straight staline reduction (like WR or Pariahs)...

But its still a LD penalty, its not a roll modifier. thus the actual LD is reduced, just like in WR.

Doesnt matter, Ordnance Barrage does not say "-1 to the test" it calls for a -1 Ld Modifier, which is the exact same thing as WR does.

So does using other LD values become less useful vs WR or do we announce using other LD values as incredibly crazy and weird?

I think i know the most logical ansewer As much as i was agreeing with you at first Alerian, i cant see letting the ability supersede all LD modifiers. If they actually modified the roll i would go with your interpretation.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:Doesnt matter, Ordnance Barrage does not say "-1 to the test" it calls for a -1 Ld Modifier, which is the exact same thing as WR does.

It only calls for it when testing..you guys keep pulling things out of context.

I have noticed how all of you guys keep going back to LD based test rules, rather than answer my question about how Pariahs and WR work the same way in regard to changing a LD stat without tests. This is probably because the BGB NEVER mentions straight LD stat changes w/o tests, as they are only specific Codex rules, that disagree with your interpretation....the BGB never mentions straight Stat changes w/o being forced into them by a test, so quit trying to use those testing rules. Instead, look at the specific codex rules, because they are all that apply in this situation.

Again, tell us why RoB works on Pariahs, but why it somewhow magically doesn't work against WR, when they both cause a straight change to the LD stat (without regards for tests), and I will concede...until then, let it go.

Alerian wrote:Again, tell us why RoB works on Pariahs, but why it somewhow magically doesn't work against WR, when they both cause a straight change to the LD stat (without regards for tests), and I will concede...until then, let it go.

Because Pariahs set it to a Set Ld Value, WR modifies the LD Value.

Next!

It doesn't matter...

In both cases, the target unit's statline is being changed, and RoB allows the unit to use ANOTHER unit's statline....your logic is flawed.

It is all or nothing...

When you test, all modifiers apply to the LD you are using for that test, no matter which LD it is.
However, straight statline modifiers from Pariahs and WR apply prior to tests, so when unit chooses to use Sic's LD, those modifiers do not apply, since they were ONLY applicable to the original unit's LD, and not the LD they are now using.

A Morale check is based on the units LD value.

"Morale checks (also called morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the units leadership value..."

Modifiers effect a units LD Value.

"Certain circumstances can make morale checks harder for a unit to pass. This is represented by applying leadership modifiers to morale checks which can reduce the units Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

Sic's text, units use his leadership for tests.

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

WR lowers the units leadership value.

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy units leadership is reduced by the number of sanctioned psykers..."

So, my contention is that unless Sic's LD value REPLACES the units during the test, then the test LD modifiers DO NOT work on his LD value, giving the unit a 10 LD no matter the modifiers. And if his LD value DOES REPLACE the units LD value, then WR MUST LOWER that value during the test because it makes no distinction where the LD value comes from, when it was changed, or when it is referred to for a test.

As before it just might be the case that you are right, i just want to understand the implication of such a decision.

Shrag..that is the point I keep making...there is no replacement..only "USE" of Sic's LD. You and others are making up wording that does not exist in RoB, because it doesn't "feel" right to you.

RoB is a Codex special rule, with it's own wording. You may not like the fact that unit can "use" Sic's LD 10 for taking tests, and you may "feel" that it should actaully "repalce" it, but that is not the case.

According to the wording of RoB, a unit can in fact "use" Sic's LD, without actaully replacing Sic's LD with their own.

You guys can argue RAI all that you want, but it does not change the RAW that Sic's special RoB rule allows "usage" of his LD stat, without actual "replacement". And, if there is no replacement, then WR cannot effect RoB.

Yes, WR lowers the LD of a unit, but guess what, that units doesn't have to "use" it's own LD stat for Morale and Pinning. If Sic is on the table, they can "use" his instead. That is the strict RAW. Any idea of "replacement" is purely interpretation, and the RoB special rule never mentions such a thing.

I concede that you might be right, the wording is poor and i think the consequence was unintended. It should get some kind of FAQ.

The effect is that, units outside of Sic, have tougher LD then Sic himself does. His can be modified, in effect theirs cannot be without first modifying Sic's.


Edit::
Same for Commissar Lords, possibly worse, as the Commie Lord states his LD value of "10". So if were going to go there, they always use 10? WR does not change the text.

schrag wrote:I concede that you might be right, the wording is poor and i think the consequence was unintended. It should get some kind of FAQ.

The effect is that, units outside of Sic, have tougher LD then Sic himself does. His can be modified, in effect theirs cannot be without first modifying Sic's.

Yes..that is what I have been saying for pages

Whether it was intended to work that way or not, the RAW of RoB directly counters WR...it all comes down to that pesky little word "use".

So Sicarius is a lot like stubborn, ignoring all negatives from ordnance, losing an assault, etc. at a guaranteed Ld10?

No. It only works for things like WR and Pariahs.

Penalties for Ordnance Barrage and losing CC happen as you take the test, so it doesn't matter whose LD a unit is "using". Those penalties will apply to LD used for that test as it happens, they will just now be penalties to LD 10, instead of the LD of the unit.

It is a matter of timing. RoB gets around anything that lowers a units LD "before" it is forced to make a morale/pinning check, as the unit can opt out of "using" their LD when the time for a test comes around. If a a penalty applies "as" you take a test, it won't matter whose LD the unit is "using", those penalties will aplly to the LD used for the test.

This means that the wording for RoB was very well thought out, and GW intended for it to work specifically against thing slike WR and Pariahs (as well as a general LD boost to the army), or the wording for RoB was very poorly thought out and leads to some unintended consequences.

See now were back to disagreeing, why does a LD modifier work and not WR? :p

If the units LD changes to Sic's WR works on the new LD. If their LD DOES NOT change, then no LD modifier will work.

barrge modifiers change the units LD, just like WR does.

Alerian wrote:
It is a matter of timing. RoB gets around anything that lowers a units LD "before" it is forced to make a morale/pinning check, as the unit can opt out of "using" their LD when the time for a test comes around. If a a penalty applies "as" you take a test, it won't matter whose LD the unit is "using", those penalties will aplly to the LD used for the test.

That is why

P1: "WR lowered your unit's LD earlier this turn, and now you have to take a morale test!"
P2: "That's OK. I'll use Sic's LD and test on his 10, since you only lowered the target unit's LD, and not Sic's!"
P1: "wow..that's sucks"

vs.

P1: "You lost combat by 3, so that will be a negative 3 LD when you test"
P2: "That's ok, I'll use Sic's LD 10"
P1: "Go ahead and use his LD10, bust since the penalty applies as you take the test, you will be taking it at 7 (10-3)"
P2; "wow..that sucks"

Alerian wrote:

Alerian wrote:
It is a matter of timing. RoB gets around anything that lowers a units LD "before" it is forced to make a morale/pinning check, as the unit can opt out of "using" their LD when the time for a test comes around. If a a penalty applies "as" you take a test, it won't matter whose LD the unit is "using", those penalties will aplly to the LD used for the test.

That is why

P1: "WR lowered your unit's LD, an now you have to take a morale test!"
P2: "That's OK. I'll use Sic's LD and test on his 10, since you only lowered the target unit's LD, and not Sic's!"
P1: "wow..that's sucks"

vs.

P1: "You lost combat by 3, so that will be a negative 3 LD when you test"
P2: "That's ok, I'll use Sic's LD 10"
P1: "Go ahead and use his LD10, bust since the penalty applies as you take the test, you will be taking it at 7 (10-3)"
P2; "wow..that sucks"

"Certain circumstances can make morale checks harder for a unit to pass. This is represented by applying leadership modifiers to morale checks which can reduce the units Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy units leadership is reduced by the number of sanctioned psykers..."

My point being they both effect LD in the same way, one applies just during a test, the other is for the entire turn. So its all or nothing.

Hehe.. I think you are right on that one.

Sicarius is as good as Stubborn. it does appear that you can always opt out of the penalties to a unit's LD and just "use" his 10. That get's even scarier if you keep Sicarius in a LR the whole game, so that he cannot be targeted.

This means that killing Sicarius should be of the highest priority when facing him.

To further the point, we can use the Commissar Lord as an example to possible intent, as he is the newest written rules.

He would have the same effect on units within 6in as Sic if we take your interpretation (which is quite valid).

Effectively giving then stubborn as well, but not to a unit he might be with EXCEPT he DOES give them stubborn from a separate rule.

Effectively making his unit and EVERY unit within 6 in stubborn with LD 10. Is this his actual intent? Why not a stubborn aura? I think this is too tricky of a rules collision for a GW rulebook, and more likely just bad wording. The more likely intent was to have his unit be Stubborn LD 10 and everyone within 6in to simply be LD 10.

By your "RaW" space marines never suffer negative modifiers to Ld Ever while Sicarius is on the table

Yeah, i think by "use" it has to mean "becomes the units LD value, with all applicable modifiers"

That's my point. Good luck getting tournament judges to accept that RAW. The connections are way too tenuous to just claim all the benefits (but no drawbacks) of Stubborn.

Stubborn has Drawbacks?

Cool, my Dark Angels have RoB so no more modifiers for me!!

[/sarcasm]

Alerian wrote:RoB allows a unit to use a different LD stat..namely Sic's. Since you keep trying to quote about penalties to LD checks, show me where WR states that it gives such penalties to checks; otherwise, give it up.

Rites of Battle allows a unit of Space Marines to use Sicarius' Ld10 for Morale checks and Pinning tests. Morale checks and Pinning tests are Leadership tests.

Since a unit's Ld is whatever Ld it is using, whether it is the highest Ld present in the unit, the number of models in the unit, or the Ld of some other model such as Sicarius, Weaken Resolve lowers that Ld and hence gives a penalty to any Ld tests the unit makes during the duration of the effect.

Nurglitch,

Thats not as clean cut as it would seem. The term in question is "use". Do they "use" his value, or does his value become their value? Because the modifiers are specific to the units value, it does not effect Sic, and thus if you were to simply "use" his LD there are no mods.

schrag:

Well, that's the thing isn't it? The section of the rules on Leadership Tests states that a unit's Leadership is whatever Leadership characteristic they are using.

So yes, the keyword is "use" and that's the term that the Leadership Test rules employ to describe unit Ld.

I think that makes it clear that any modifiers to the unit's Ld are modifiers to whichever Ld they are using, and if they are using Sicarius' Ld10, then any modifiers incurred by the unit modify Ld10.

I guess the thing that I'm finding strange here is that the rules state that a unit's Ld is whatever Ld the unit is using to take Leadership Tests such as Morale checks and Pinning tests, yet people are somehow distinguishing between a unit's Ld and the Ld the unit is using, which is a distinction that the rules do not make.

See also: "Characters as Leaders", p.47, Rulebook, stating that units may use the Leadership of Independent Characters as the unit's Leadership, when the former joins the latter.

"So yes, the keyword is "use" and that's the term that the Leadership Test rules employ to describe unit Ld. "

Not true
from the book...

"Morale checks (also called morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the units leadership value..."

The test is taken from the units LD value. Sic overrides that and says to use his. Modifiers modify the units LD value per their wording in the rulebook. They do not modify Sic's, so when you "use" his are you using his? Or replacing the units with his?

[quote=Leadership Tests, P.8, Rulebook

Units take tests based on the highest LD in the unit, all models in said unit are effected by modifiers, but Sic is NOT part of the modified unit, thus his LD is unaffected by any modifiers.

It does not say "use his leadership as the units Leadership..."

It says "use his Leadership..."

That is my distinction, i think you are likely correct to the intent, but the RaW is definitely not supporting it.

The Weaken Resolve psychic power disagrees with you there, schrag. It says only that the enemy unit's Ld is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psyckers in the Psycker Battle Squad.

Since the rulebook indicates that the unit's Leadership is whichever Ld value it is using, and Rites of Battle, as you say, states that they use Sicarius' Leadership, the unit's Leadership is reduced according to Weaken Resolve.

I'm sorry, but I'm not discussing any kind of intent, I'm simply pointing out what the text says, and your distinction is simply not supported by the text. It seems that the text clearly states that use is possession where unit Leadership is concerned.

Why is the unit's Leadership Ld8? Because the unit is using Model A's Ld8, according to the rulebook.

Model "A" is still part of the unit. Sicarius is not and that is a difference.

The unit's leadership is just that, the unit's leadership, defined by the use of the highest leadership model in the unit. The use of the highest leadership in the unit, does not translate to any leadership being used becomes the unit's leadership.

Nurglitch wrote:
Since the rulebook indicates that the unit's Leadership is whichever Ld value it is using, and Rites of Battle, as you say, states that they use Sicarius' Leadership, the unit's Leadership is reduced according to Weaken Resolve.

Where does it say a units LD is the LD it is using? A units LD is the highest LD value of the models in the unit taken from their entry in the army list.

"...2D6 and comparing the total to the units leadership value..."

WR effects the UNITS LD
"...the enemy units leadership is reduced..."

Assault loss modifiers effects the UNITS LD
"modifiers to morale checks which can reduce the units Leadership value"

RoB says
"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."
No matter how many mods are on the other units Leadership, Sic's Leadership DOES NOT CHANGE. Thus if you use HIS leadership, its an unmodified 10.

That's a bit of reading into it there. It doesn't say his unmodified leadership, it just says his leadership.

So it really depends on which order things happen. Does the squad use his leadership then apply the modifiers or do the modifiers get applied and then get ignored in favor of his leadership. I'm inclined to believe the former (because of the lack of Easter eggs in the rules).

Ozymandias wrote:That's a bit of reading into it there. It doesn't say his unmodified leadership, it just says his leadership.

So it really depends on which order things happen. Does the squad use his leadership then apply the modifiers or do the modifiers get applied and then get ignored in favor of his leadership. I'm inclined to believe the former (because of the lack of Easter eggs in the rules).

Well, even by the order things happen, RoB would trump WR. The LD modifier from WR happens when the PBS casts it. Morale/pinning tests happen later, when the unit takes casualties/loses assault (which would be your second interpretation).

I was more referring to the combat modifiers not affecting Sic's LD. I am inclined to believe that WR does not affect a unit using RoB.

Mahu:

Except that membership in the squad is not a relevant difference where Rites of Battle is concerned since it makes no difference whether Sicarius has joined the squad using his Ld as its own, or not.

What is relevant is where the unit's Leadership comes from, since units do not have their own Leadership characteristic. When a model has the highest Leadership in a unit, that model's Leadership is used for Leadership tests. The keyword, as other posters have noted, is "use". A unit's Leadership is the Leadership it uses.

That means that references to a unit's Leadership in the Morale and Pinning rules are references to the Leadership the unit is using.

If a unit of Space Marines are using Sicarius' Ld10 for Morale and Pinning tests, then they are using L10 for Leadership tests, and the unit's Leadership for such tests is Ld10.

While it is true that Sicarius' Ld10 does not change, a unit affected by Weaken Resolve does have its Leadership reduced. Since it is using Sicarius' Ld10, the unit's Leadership is equal to 10 - (#Sanctioned Psyckers). Units whose Leadership is not reduced get to use Sicarius' full Ld10, if the unit whose Leadership is being reduced is not Sicarius himself or any unit he has joined.

So clearly I agree with you, that Sicarius' Leadership remains unchanged so long as his unit is not affected by Weaken Resolve. However, where we disagree, is where the Leadership of units using his Leadership as their own have that Leadership reduced by Weaken Resolve effects on them.

What is relevant, though, is how a unit's Ld is obtained. Units do not have a Leadership characteristic.

schrag:

It says that a unit's Leadership is the Leadership value it is using on p.8 of the rulebook, in the section entitled "Leadership Tests". I've underlined the keyword for you:

Leadership Tests, P.8, Rulebook wrote:If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value.

Likewise, it reiterates this on p.47 of the rulebook, in the section entitled "Characters as Leaders".

The section on p.8 also tells us which tests are Leadership Tests, which include Morale checks:

Leadership Tests, P.8, Rulebook wrote:Tests made against the Leadership characteristic (like Morale checks) are different from other tests. In the case of a Leadership test, roll 2D6 (two dice added together, as explained earlier). If the result is equal to or less than the model's Leadership, the test is passed.

So how are Morale checks handled? The following excerpt from the section entitled "Morale Checks" on p.43 of the rulebook conforms to the established rules for Leadership Tests, which is good since the Leadership Test rules make reference to them, but I suggest the repetition is included for the usual reasons of emphasis and clarity.

Morale Checks, P.43, Rulebook wrote:Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leadership value. If the score is equal to or under the unit's Leadership value, the test is passed and the unit does not suffer any ill effects,

Certainly it is a point of fact that the quoted excerpt of the Morale Check rules do not say that the total of 2D6 is compared to the "Leadership that the unit is using", but that's un-necessary since the Leadership Test rules have already established earlier on that a unit's Leadership is whatever Leadership it is using. It does not need to use the clumsy phrasing of the "Leadership that the unit is using" when it has already established a shorthand term of "unit's Leadership".

It is a fact that the Leadership Test rules say that if a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value. It does not say that the unit's Leadership is the highest Ld value in the unit. The Character As Leaders section emphasizes and clarifies this important point verbatim.

Sicarius' Rites of Battle rule, with its emphasis on the term 'use' conforms to the meaning of that term established in the rulebook by the Leadership Test rules.

Nurglitch...

Me thinks thou dost protest too much....

You are wrong, for all the reasons that I have previously given you.

Not a too impressive rebuttal considering the length to which Nurglitch have gone in order to make his points clear


.....me thinks.

I agree with steelmage, at least have the decency to point out why he is wrong (even though he isn't, but there ya go).

Steelmage99 wrote:Not a too impressive rebuttal considering the length to which Nurglitch have gone in order to make his points clear


.....me thinks.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:I agree with steelmage, at least have the decency to point out why he is wrong (even though he isn't, but there ya go).

Since, I have given all of the reasons for the last 3 pages, I feel no need to rebut him AGAIN. I have pointed out why Nurglitch is wrong several times. Please, remember that this is a 5 page thread, and that I have been discussing this for awhile. So, please, take the time to read before you make brash, inflamitory statements. If you actaully take the time to go back through this thread, you will see that I have sppken in great length and clarity on this issue.

In short, I don't need to make an "impressive rebuttal", as I have already given plenty of evidence regarding this subject, and Nurglitch's rebutal of my evidence DOES NOT deal with any of the questions I have raised, nor does it contradict any of the evidence I have presented.

I was merely pointing to my previous posts as to evidence of why he is wrong.

Nurg,

I do agree with your conclusion, though im not convinced of the clarity of the text i can concede to it. It was a question of what "use" means and i think both ways could be successfully argued, but yours is more sensible. The real question, and my main contention from earlier was about WR working along with modifiers. WR and the text for modifiers is too similar to allow one to work and the other to not. Both effect unit LD, one if only effective during the current roll being made, and the other is until the end of the turn. From my reading, either both work, or neither.

"Certain circumstances can make morale checks harder for a unit to pass. This is represented by applying leadership modifiers to morale checks which can reduce the units Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy units leadership is reduced by the number of sanctioned psykers..."

I cant see how one works and the other does not. I dont rememebr if you agreed with that or not, if you do then cool if not, than i think that is the next argument.

In an effort to put this to rest, here is the most detailed argument I can make.

Page 3

Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units.

Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model. This gives the troopers the freedom to move over difficult terrain quickly, and enables them to take advantage of such things as minor folds in the ground, scrub, and other small features, to shelter from enemy fire. Similarly, artillery batteries consist of large guns and the crew that fire them, vehicle squadrons are made up of a number of vehicles and so on. The different elements of the unit have to stay together to remain an effective fighting force. This is detailed more fully in the Movement section (see page 12).

A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as ‘units’. The different types of unit are detailed overleaf.

I posted all of this to remind everyone exactly what a unit is. It is the physical collection of models on the table.

Page 8

Tests made against the Leadership characteristic (like Morale checks) are different from other tests. In the case of a Leadership test, roll 2D6 (two dice added together, as explained earlier). If the result is equal to or less than the model’s Leadership, the test is passed.

If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value.

Modifiers may apply to the Leadership characteristic in particularly trying circumstances – for example, -1 if the unit suffered wounds from an Ordnance barrage weapon, as described later.

This is the rule that Nurglitch keeps referring to in error. As you can see plainly, the rule only refers models with different leadership characteristics in the unit.

Again, Units consist of Models that must maintain a defined formation. The Leadership Characteristic of the unit is defined by the highest leadership model in the unit. There is no use equals possession here because the rule is only about how you determines the units leadership when you have multiple models in the unit with different values, but it is still only refering to the unit.

Page 43

Morale represents the grit, determination, or (sometimes) plain stupidity of warriors in action. Like all other Leadership-based tests, Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit’s Leadership value. If the score is equal to or under the unit’s Leadership value, the test is passed and the unit does not suffer any ill effects – their nerve has held. However, if the score rolled is higher, then the test is failed and the unit will immediately fall back, as described over the page.

Some units have special rules pertaining to Morale checks that are detailed in the appropriate Codex. For example, some particularly fanatical units may be immune to the effects of morale. Some units always pass Morale checks, while a few others always pass all Leadership tests. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, units that always pass Morale checks will still have to test for Pinning.

So we maintain what the rule book defines a unit as. Normally we take Morale Test based on the unit's leadership value as defined by the models in said unit.

See still no indication of use equals possession.

Page 47

Remember that a unit’s Leadership tests are taken using the Leadership of the model with the highest Ld value in the unit (see page 8). As characters normally have a better Ld than other warriors, this means that they make very good leaders for other units in the army.

See? It's always about models in the unit that defines the unit's leadership value.

A unit with an Independent Character is only using that models leadership because it is a model in the unit. There is still no indication of use equals possession, the unit's leadership value is defined by the models in it.

Now back to the two rules being questioned.

PG. 47 of the IG Codex:

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utilizing the power (to a minimum of 2)."

See the leadership of the unit, the collection of models in a formation on the table, is reduced.

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

So, is Sicarius in the unit? No, his model is not attached to the unit.

Does the Leadership of the Unit becomes Sicarius' Leadership? No, because Sicarius is not in the unit. The unit, defined by the models on the table are not using their leadership for the test, they are using Sicarius'.

There is absolutely no proof in the rules that the Leadership that a Unit used becomes their Leadership. The units Leadership is defined several times to be the Leadership characteristic of the models in said unit.

Weaken Resolve only changed the unit's leadership value. Sicarius allows a Unit to test on a Leadership that is not their own. It is that simple.

Last thing, does Rities of Battle care if the Space Marine Unit's Leadership is 8 or 9 (as defined by the models in most SM units)? Then why do you think it cares when the unit's leadership is a 2!

Mahu wrote:In an effort to put this to rest, here is the most detailed argument I can make.

Page 3

Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units.

Units fight in loose groups with gaps between each model. This gives the troopers the freedom to move over difficult terrain quickly, and enables them to take advantage of such things as minor folds in the ground, scrub, and other small features, to shelter from enemy fire. Similarly, artillery batteries consist of large guns and the crew that fire them, vehicle squadrons are made up of a number of vehicles and so on. The different elements of the unit have to stay together to remain an effective fighting force. This is detailed more fully in the Movement section (see page 12).

A unit will usually consist of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or powerful model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as ‘units’. The different types of unit are detailed overleaf.

I posted all of this to remind everyone exactly what a unit is. It is the physical collection of models on the table.

Page 8

Tests made against the Leadership characteristic (like Morale checks) are different from other tests. In the case of a Leadership test, roll 2D6 (two dice added together, as explained earlier). If the result is equal to or less than the model’s Leadership, the test is passed.

If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value.

Modifiers may apply to the Leadership characteristic in particularly trying circumstances – for example, -1 if the unit suffered wounds from an Ordnance barrage weapon, as described later.

This is the rule that Nurglitch keeps referring to in error. As you can see plainly, the rule only refers models with different leadership characteristics in the unit.

Again, Units consist of Models that must maintain a defined formation. The Leadership Characteristic of the unit is defined by the highest leadership model in the unit. There is no use equals possession here because the rule is only about how you determines the units leadership when you have multiple models in the unit with different values, but it is still only refering to the unit.

Page 43

Morale represents the grit, determination, or (sometimes) plain stupidity of warriors in action. Like all other Leadership-based tests, Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit’s Leadership value. If the score is equal to or under the unit’s Leadership value, the test is passed and the unit does not suffer any ill effects – their nerve has held. However, if the score rolled is higher, then the test is failed and the unit will immediately fall back, as described over the page.

Some units have special rules pertaining to Morale checks that are detailed in the appropriate Codex. For example, some particularly fanatical units may be immune to the effects of morale. Some units always pass Morale checks, while a few others always pass all Leadership tests. This is a subtle but important difference. For example, units that always pass Morale checks will still have to test for Pinning.

So we maintain what the rule book defines a unit as. Normally we take Morale Test based on the unit's leadership value as defined by the models in said unit.

See still no indication of use equals possession.

Page 47

Remember that a unit’s Leadership tests are taken using the Leadership of the model with the highest Ld value in the unit (see page 8). As characters normally have a better Ld than other warriors, this means that they make very good leaders for other units in the army.

See? It's always about models in the unit that defines the unit's leadership value.

A unit with an Independent Character is only using that models leadership because it is a model in the unit. There is still no indication of use equals possession, the unit's leadership value is defined by the models in it.

Now back to the two rules being questioned.

PG. 47 of the IG Codex:

"For the remainder of the turn, the enemy unit's Leadership is reduced by the number of Sanctioned Psykers in the unit utilizing the power (to a minimum of 2)."

See the leadership of the unit, the collection of models in a formation on the table, is reduced.

PG. 85 of the SM Codex:

"If Sicarius is on the table, all other Space Marine units can use his Leadership for any Morale or Pinning tests."

So, is Sicarius in the unit? No, his model is not attached to the unit.

Does the Leadership of the Unit becomes Sicarius' Leadership? No, because Sicarius is not in the unit. The unit, defined by the models on the table are not using their leadership for the test, they are using Sicarius'.

There is absolutely no proof in the rules that the Leadership that a Unit used becomes their Leadership. The units Leadership is defined several times to be the Leadership characteristic of the models in said unit.

Weaken Resolve only changed the unit's leadership value. Sicarius allows a Unit to test on a Leadership that is not their own. It is that simple.

Last thing, does Rities of Battle care if the Space Marine Unit's Leadership is 8 or 9 (as defined by the models in most SM units)? Then why do you think it cares when the unit's leadership is a 2!

What about modifiers from barrage/ wounds in assault?

Since those tests are a Leadership Modifier to the Units Leadership, by strict interpretation, RoB would surpass that as well.

schrag:

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. The two pieces of text that you've highlighted orange mean almost same thing.

According to the Leadership Test section of the rules a unit's Ld can be reduced. This is repeated in the Morale Check section of the rules.

Leadership Tests, p.8, rulebook wrote:Modifiers may apply to the Leadership characteristic in particularly trying circumstances - for example, -1 if the unit suffered wounds from an Ordnance barrage weapon, as described later.

The Weaken Resolve rule is a modifier lasting for the remainder of the turn. Note that the rulebook has
defined the meaning of "the turn" to be short for "player turn" (Game Turns and Player Turns, p.9, rulebook). Modifiers specific to Morale checks, such as the number of casualties, is a modifier last for the duration of that specific Leadership test. These modifiers are cumulative.

Alerian:

I'm going to try and summarize the evidence you propose to support the position that, because the unit uses Sicarius' Ld10, the unit may take Leadership tests at Ld10 despite the effects of Weaken Resolve (and presumably any other modifiers to the unit's Leadership). Please correct me where I misrepresent the evidence you have put forward, or the conclusions you have drawn from that evidence.

Your evidence, following the numbering on your first post is as follows:

1. During the Imperial Guard [player] turn, a Psycker Battle Squad casts Weaken Resolve on a Tactical Squad under the command of Captain Sicarius. If the Tactical Squad has a Sergeant, and the Psycker Battle Squad has five Sanctioned Psyckers, this reduces the unit's Leadership from Ld9 to Ld4. Correct?

2. The Imperial Guard shooting phase continues, inflicting 25%+ casualties on the Tactical Squad. This forces the Space Marine player to take a Morale check for the Tactical Squad at the end of the Imperial Guard shooting phase.

3. The Tactical Squad uses Sicarius' Ld10, due to his Rites of Battle.

Your conclusions appear to be (added #5):

4. The test is made against Ld10 rather than Ld5 because Sicarius is not affected by the Weaken Resolve power in play.

5. This has something to do with timing. You explain that Weaken Resolve affects the unit before that unit uses Sicarius' Leadership for the Morale check, rather than as the unit takes the Morale check. You posit that because the player has the option of using the unit's Leadership or Sicarius' Leadership, and the effect of Weaken Resolve happen before the test rather than during the test, Sicarius' Leadership is exempt from the effect of Weaken Resolve (as his Leadership is chosen as the test is taken, and not beforehand). Correct?

Furthermore, you posit that there is a different between a unit using Sicarius' Leadership value, and replacing their own Leadership value with Sicarius'. You take this to mean that because the Tactical Squad uses Sicarius' Leadership instead of replacing their own unit Leadership with that value, and Sicarius is unaffected by Weaken Resolve, that the Tactical Squad tests on Sicarius' un-modified Leadership.

In other words, you make a distinction between a unit using a Leadership value and having a Leadership value. Correct?

Also, you make a distinction between modifiers to a unit's Leadership value, and modifiers to a Morale check, such that the modifiers to a Morale check apply to whatever Leadership a unit is using, and the modifiers to a Leadership value only apply to that value whether it is used or not.

In addition, you claim that Rites of Battle changes the way that Morale tests work, allowing a unit to "use" the Leadership value of a model that is not part of that unit. Put another way, you claim that Rites of Battle changes the way Morale tests work by allowing a unit to use a Leadership value that is not its own. Correct?

Have I summarized your evidence and conclusions correctly?

My only point was that, if modifiers still effect the LD test of a unit using Sic's LD, than WR MUST ALSO effect the use of his LD value in the same way. I think we are agreeing on this.

Actually, having gone through the rules again, I need to correct myself.

Page 43

Certain circumstances can make Morale checks harder for a unit to pass. This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to Morale checks, which can reduce the unit’s Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more.

It looks like the Leadership Modifier is to the test, not the enemies leadership. "which can" is a conditional/ optional statement. A reduction to the unit's leadership can be reduced, but the modifier is really to the Morale Check.

The reduction on an enemies Leadership is not an absolute statement. In English, commas are used only when a thought can be excluded from a sentence and still be complete, so in essence the "This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to Morale checks" is the sentence and the "which can reduce the unit’s Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more." is a clarifying thought.

Page 44

Units taking this Morale Check suffer a -1 Ld modifier for each wound their side has lost the combat by.

Page 58

In addition, ordnance barrages are even more terrifying than normal ones – Pinning tests caused by ordnance barrages are taken with a -1 Ld modifier.

So as you can, Leadership Modifier's refer to the test, not what the rules define as the unit's leadership.

So to distill this issue, it comes down to what is being modified. The Unit's Leadership or the Morale Check.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, I guess the issue is settled then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am bumping this one more time to see if there is any more discussion on this. As a player who is taking Sicarius to a tournament, I want to make sure that this is settled.

Sorry for the threadromancy, but, I need to ask because of the latest INAT FAQ ruling

How on earth did they rule such a contentious and (5pages later) obviously open for debate issue as RAW without Yakface even posting thoughts here??

Im still failing to be convinced by the (well set out, thanks!) arguments of helpful posters here.

I cannot get around the fact that no matter how people want to argue that this is a modifier, and it still happens when you take the test etc, that there are two very distinct elements.

WR -
"...the units LD..."

RoB -
"..may use his LD.."

I dont see how the targeted squad and its modifiers have any impact on the RoB model's LD.

All the arguments presented seem to (correct me if im wrong) rely on the additional issues of substitution for leadership or replacement etc. And while that may be very well and good, isnt it convoluting what is very simply use A or B?

To me, in simplest form, it breaks down like this:

A has an LD value.
B has an LD value.
A may use B's LD value.
Event X happens to make A's LD worse.

How do we then get that if we use B its worse too?


Again, sorry to drag up a 5month old thread, but ive only just read the FAQ and its a little bit annoying since theres been no real vindication either way.

The INAT faq is growing in popularity and more and more gaming groups are using it. With that, I think theres at least a small responsibility issue on behalf of the writers to explain why decisions are made in the threads where theyre discussed.

thanks again in advance!

YIKES!

Morticon wrote:How on earth did they rule such a contentious and (5pages later) obviously open for debate issue as RAW without Yakface even posting thoughts here??

He did... back on pages 1 and 2.

Locking for Threadnomancy.