So i was in a game last week and I was playing a 2000pt game against a friend and I brought my Callidus assassin in from reserves on turn 2 and struck a squad of Chaos marines with a lord in the group. When i got around to placing the neural shredder template over the group of chaos marines My opponent said that because there is a lord in the group my weapon has to go against his leadership and I argued that it would go against the majority leadership. The shredder is S8 AP1 and states that "hits from the neural shredder are resolved against the targets leadership rather than toughness". How exactly does this weapon work?

Your opponent was wrong: the neural shredder is checked against each models leadership statistic individually, and is not a 'leadership check' that you can use the lords' stat for. (well, unless the lord has an ability that raises everyones leadership score rather than allowing them to use his for certain purposes anyway, i plead unfamiliarity with the chaos codex)

You basically treat their leadership value as a pseudo-'toughness' stat that you roll against as normal to wound.

For example if model has a leadership of 9, you'd have to roll a 5+ to wound it with the shredder.

Yup, neural shredder is one of the few weapons in the game that ignores majority-stat rules. You wound each model individually but then the wounds are lumped together and distributed as a shooting attack. Complicated, but it was written for 5th not 6th wound allocation.

Just out of curiosity, where does it state you roll against each model separately. Last time I checked, things that wound on Ld, just replaces Toughness with Ld, in all respects, ie S8 is ID against Ld4 models, roll to wound against majority Ld etc.

You check the hits on a per model basis. So while the model itself isn't taking the wound specifically(yet) it still hits his leadership.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You check the hits on a per model basis. So while the model itself isn't taking the wound specifically(yet) it still hits his leadership.

Why? That's not how to wound normally works on units with mixed toughness values, for instance.

It uses majority Leadership.

It follows all the usual rules for shooting, wounding, etc, as a regular attack except replace each instance of "Toughness" with "Leadership".

You don't roll to wound each model by their own toughness, or use the highest toughness. Just because it's Leadership now, those things don't change.

I think since the weapon doesn't require the unit or model(s) to take a characteristic test because it has its own Strength Value, for the Neural Shredder it would be against majority Leadership, unless there's a rule which states a Character's Ld is always used for a unit's Ld if joined to said unit. Don't have my book with me to look it up.

The reason it doesn't use a rule for majority 'leadership' is because there is no rule that exists which requires one to do so.

The Majority Toughness rule only applies to toughness, not leadership.

 Neorealist wrote:
The Majority Toughness rule only applies to toughness, not leadership.

Majority toughness applies to the process of rolling to-wound. If you substitute leadership for toughness in the process of rolling to-wound, the value you roll against must be majority leadership; any other procedure would be changing not the stat, but the very method of rolling, based on nothing in the rules at all.

EDIT:

For example, the normal rule is basically "compare S to majority T and look up the value on the chart".
Now, we substitute T with Ld. You get "compare S to majority Ld and look up the value on the chart".
You do not get "compare S to individual Ld and look up the value on the chart, rolling separately for each model", because that's changing a whole lot of rules you have no permission to change, for no given reason.

Sure you could substitute the word 'leadership' into the majority toughness rule and it'd probably work fine. That said, which rule are you following that requires you to do so?

OK I figured out my confusion:

Q: When using a Callidus Assassin’s Neural Shredder, do you use the
targets Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if
Instant Death applies? (p53)
A: You use the target’s Leadership.

I was at work and mis-remembered the FAQ. This is also in all the FAQs that have a weapon that wounds on d instead of Toughness.

RAI, you're supposed to use majority Leadership. And if enough people asked GW about it, they would be certain to FAQ it that way.

RAW is individual Leadership though.

Just for clarification then? do you use ld 7 or 10 vs alot of ork boyz (>10 models in the mob) ?

If there are more than 10 boys in the mob, then their individulal leadership is 10

AS above. Mob rule is a replacement of the value with the mob size.

You use majority leadership, because every single weapon that has ever used this method has used majority leadership

nosferatu100 wrote:You use majority leadership, because every single weapon that has ever used this method has used majority leadership

This is blatently incorrect. Not a single weapon which has used this type of template (and there are several) has ever explicitly told people to do the above. You and others are making a huge assumption based on how you play or how you'd prefer it to be rather than what is written on the page.

The old neural shredder certainly did, back in 4th edition - took a FAQ...

If you do not use majority toughness you have no method for wounding the unit available to you.

Sure you do. Just follow the 'Roll to Wound' rules from their beginning to end, skipping the parts that don't apply to leadership and replacing the initial check vs toughness to leadership as per the weapons' own rules.

You'll find that essentially removing the majority toughness rule doesn't really change much, just makes it take slightly longer.

Except you have no permission to wound each model individually, as you would have to do; you are woundign a unit.

nosferatu null wrote:Except you have no permission to wound each model individually, as you would have to do; you are woundign a unit.

At the risk of sounding redundant, can you factually authenticate that argument, preferrably with some actual rules quoted from the 6th edition main book?

Wounding each target based on their toughness (or in this case, leadership) is how the 'Roll to Wound' section works as written, it is only through the intervention of the 'Majority Toughness' rule that you ever contrast the unit as a whole.

Please read age 14, and note you only have permission to wound

the target

Unless you have a new rule you can show, shooting requires nominating, as the first step, the enemy unit you wish to target

So, again. Show the rule allowing you to roll to wound against a specific model. Because the real, 6th edition rules state otherwise.

So in answer to your highly sarcastic sounding question - YES, I can and have done. OVer to you.

Thank you. Now if you would, indicate where wounding 'the target' requires the majority toughness rule to be assessed?

The target is the unit.

Find a rule allowing you to wound the unit that does not use majority toughness.

The neural shredder; as it requires you to wound against the targets' leadership, not the majority toughness.

Which since you roll to wound a unit, the unit is the target, not the specific models under the template. so what is the unit's Leadership?

 Neorealist wrote:
The neural shredder; as it requires you to wound against the targets' leadership, not the majority toughness.

Is the target a unit or model?

happyjew wrote: Which since you roll to wound a unit, the unit is the target, not the specific models under the template. so what is the unit's Leadership?

That of the specific models under the template. As per the rules for templates: "...templates... ...are used as a way of determining how many models have been hit by an attack..."

rigeld2 wrote: Is the target a unit or model?

Both, actually. the 6th edition book defines a 'unit' a a group of models. "...we represent this by grouping models together into units..."

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: Is the target a unit or model?

Both, actually. the 6th edition book defines a 'unit' a a group of models. "...we represent this by grouping models together into units..."

So when you declare a target with your boltgun, you can target the Sarge in the unit? If a target can be a model after all...

So when you declare a target with your boltgun, you can target the Sarge in the unit? If a target can be a model after all...

Irrelevent, no one is discussing a bolt gun and how they target.

You can however place a template over top of a sargeant. That said, the controlling player may very well not choose to place the wound on said sargeant, so that has little functional difference other than determining the number of models hit in the unit.

 Neorealist wrote:

So when you declare a target with your boltgun, you can target the Sarge in the unit? If a target can be a model after all...

Irrelevent, no one is discussing a bolt gun and how they target.

It's not irrelevant. You're trying to say that a template weapon can target models. I'm trying to demonstrate that isn't true.

You can however place a template over top of a sargeant. That said, the controlling player may very well not choose to place the wound on said sargeant, so that has little functional difference other than determining the number of models hit in the unit.

Well, the controlling player can't actually choose where the wound goes (barring LOS). I think you should re-read the shooting section of the rules to re-familiarize yourself with them.

So wait, you are now claiming that despite the rules saying otherwise, the unit is NOT the target?

The Neural Shredder is still a weapon that you shoot, meaning you must delcare a TARGET

TARGET is defined as a UNIT

Therefore, using the wonder power known as substitution, means you are wounding against the UNITS leadership

Find a rule showing how you determine the UNITS leadership. Remember: you have only shown that templatesd work out how many models have been hit by what is under, you have made another fallacy in assuming that this somehow changes the target to be those models. Which it doesnt.

rigeld2 wrote:Well, the controlling player can't actually choose where the wound goes (barring LOS). I think you should re-read the shooting section of the rules to re-familiarize yourself with them.

I don't believe that is necessary, and further i believe you probably should stop offering advice on what you think i need to do. That said, the 'controlling player' in my statement above refers to the controller of the unit, not the controller of the template. I could have made that more clear, this is true.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Well, the controlling player can't actually choose where the wound goes (barring LOS). I think you should re-read the shooting section of the rules to re-familiarize yourself with them.

I don't believe that is necessary, and further i believe you probably should stop offering advice on what you think i need to do. That said, the 'controlling player' in my statement above refers to the controller of the unit, not the controller of the template. I could have made that more clear, this is true.

And you'd still be wrong as the controlling player (of the unit) can never choose where a wound is allocated/goes barring LOS.

edit: And you're still ignoring the fact that to shoot a weapon you must select a unit as a target, not individual models.

null wrote:So wait, you are now claiming that despite the rules saying otherwise, the unit is NOT the target?

The Neural Shredder is still a weapon that you shoot, meaning you must delcare a TARGET

TARGET is defined as a UNIT

Therefore, using the wonder power known as substitution, means you are wounding against the UNITS leadership

Find a rule showing how you determine the UNITS leadership. Remember: you have only shown that templatesd work out how many models have been hit by what is under, you have made another fallacy in assuming that this somehow changes the target to be those models. Which it doesnt.

1) The target is the unit, a group of models.
2) The models hit in that unit are the ones under the template, as per the template rules.
3) Determining what happens to a target that has been hit by an attack is done via the 'Roll to Wound' (and latter) sections of the main book.

Following from step 1 to step 3, nowhere have a I violated a single precedural rule.
As for how you determine the leadership you must roll against? You refer to the statistics of the models in the unit, as that is the only location where such can be found. There is no 'majority leadership' statistic (as defined by a rule) for the unit as a whole and you are not given permission to modify the 'majority toughness' rule to accomodate what is so obviously your preference in this regard.

So if I have a unit with mixed toughness (say 4 models at T4 and 6 models at T3) and a flamer is fired at them only covering the T4 models I get to to use their Toughness instead of majority? Sweet.

Happyjew wrote:So if I have a unit with mixed toughness (say 4 models at T4 and 6 models at T3) and a flamer is fired at them only covering the T4 models I get to to use their Toughness instead of majority? Sweet.

I'd suggest that sarcasm isn't appropriate to this discussion?

Given that normal flamers wound vs toughness, you would of course use the majority toughness of the unit. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.

The statistics of the individual models don't help you wound the unit itself which, as you stated, is a group of models, not a singular model. If you refer to the leadership of the individual models and roll for them seperately then you aren't wounding a group of models, you are wounding a singular model, which where you start violating the rules.

Show us the rule that allows you to substitute rolling against single models for rolling against a group of them.

Neo - so, yet again, you are claiming that the template rules have changed the target?

The target is the unit. Find a rule allowing you to wound against the target units leadership. Not the models, as they are not the target, the TARGET is singular, not plural.

Rules this time. From the 6th edition BRB please.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
The statistics of the individual models don't help you wound the unit itself which, as you stated, is a group of models, not a singular model. If you refer to the leadership of the individual models and roll for them seperately then you aren't wounding a group of models, you are wounding a singular model, which where you start violating the rules..

Not quite. I've bolded the part where you went astray with your reasoning. By rolling against the leadership statistics present on each of the models hit by the template, you are still wounding the unit as a whole by following the 'Roll to Wound' section of the main book to the letter, not wounding each model individually.

The unit is described as a group of models, ergo by wounding one, solitary model, you cannot possibly be wounding the unit.

I'm not advocating not using majority toughness but under templates in my BRB it says "Any models fully or partially under the template are hit." Via GW wording it does look like those models specifically are hit not the unit but then you are instructed to allocate as normal......

Edit: Templates also say the target unit though as well.

nosferatu wrote:The target is the unit. Find a rule allowing you to wound against the target units leadership. Not the models, as they are not the target, the TARGET is singular, not plural.

Please refer to my prior post where i indicated that for the purpose of the 6th edition rules, the 'unit' (therefore the target) and the 'models it is comprised of' are synonymous in game terms. The relevent rule is quoted there, so I'm not going to repeat myself when it's easy enough for you to just scroll back in this thread a bit.

Avatar wrote:The unit is described as a group of models, ergo by wounding one, solitary model, you cannot possibly be wounding the unit.

Actually you can, as that is exactly what happens.

EDIT 2: Actually, Nos has phrased it well enough.

The Target is a singular object; Unit. You are told to wound the target, the unit, and not the plurality of models.

Please provide a rule allowing you to target individual models. Actual rules.

nosferatu wrote: Please provide a rule allowing you to target individual models. Actual rules.

Who said anything about 'targetting' individual models? I'm saying you 'wound' (by rolling against their leadership) the unit based on the models under the template which are hit.

Except that isnt wounding the unit; the models hit by the template are not the target, they just tell you how many hits you have achieved.

So, again, how do you determine the Units leadership, as that is the Target?

You can give up any time you like, and admit that using the majority toughness rules makes the most sense, and was what was FAQ'd in previous editions.

Nope.

The 'Roll to Wound' section tells you how to deal with the target models that were hit. I'll quote it for you: "...compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart..."

The Neural Shedder tells us"...hits are resolved against the target's Leadership, rather than its Toughness...

Given that the target of the shot is the unit, and the unit is the same thing as the models it is composed of, you have to resolve against the leadership of the models.

With me so far? Ok then, what is the Leadership (in this context) of the models you ask? A Characteristic Test.

How do we make characteristic tests? "...Roll a D6 and compare the result to the relevant characteristic in the model's profile..."

which models is the above referring to? "...A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially underneath the template..."

tl;dr
you hit models, those models take characteristic tests against their leadership statistics based on the 'To Wound' chart, and the wounds are then pooled and distributed in accordance with the rules for such.

Any other questions?

 Neorealist wrote:
With me so far? Ok then, what is the Leadership (in this context) of the models you ask? A Characteristic Test.

Nope. That's not correct. Rolling to Wound is not a Toughness test either.

the normal 'To Wound' rule: "...compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart..."

If you resolve the above with the word 'leadership' instead of 'toughness' , what do you have?

 Neorealist wrote:
the normal 'To Wound' rule: "...compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart..."

If you resolve the above with the word 'leadership' instead of 'toughness' , what do you have?

Not a characteristic test as you asserted. Since that's defined as rolling a d6 under the given characteristic.

And if you resolve the above with the word Leadership instead of Toughness you need to use the target's Leadership - which is not individual models, it's the unit as a whole.

The targets' leadership is comprised of the models' leaderships. (that is the only location that you can find that statistic and yet again there is no rule telling us to use the majority leadership of the unit)

 Neorealist wrote:
The targets' leadership is comprised of the models' leaderships. (that is the only location that you can find that statistic and yet again there is no rule telling us to use the majority leadership of the unit)

Comprised of? So you add up all the Leaderships?

If all the Leaderships in the unit are the same, you'd wound on that number. If they're mixed your only choices are a) the unit is impossible to wound with this weapon or b) majority Leadership because that is the unit's Leadership. I'll let you pick.

So, perusing the rulebook for other similar weapons/abilities and ran across something that might throw a monkey wrench in there for Neo...The "Psychic Shriek" telepathy power is a shooting attack of which you roll 3d6 and subtract the targets leadership to determine how many wounds are caused. So how would you determine the targets leadership in this instance if you had a LD7 unit with a LD10 character leading them?

rigeld2 wrote:Comprised of? So you add up all the Leaderships?

I'm sorry, you really do know better than this. I'm not going to dignify that by even trying to formulate a response.

rigeld2 wrote:If all the Leaderships in the unit are the same, you'd wound on that number. If they're mixed your only choices are a) the unit is impossible to wound with this weapon or b) majority Leadership because that is the unit's Leadership. I'll let you pick.

how about C) You wound each model under the template at their own leadership score?

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:If all the Leaderships in the unit are the same, you'd wound on that number. If they're mixed your only choices are a) the unit is impossible to wound with this weapon or b) majority Leadership because that is the unit's Leadership. I'll let you pick.

how about C) You wound each model under the template at their own leadership score?

C has no basis in any rules whatsoever.
How can you roll to wound a unit (as required - because the unit was the target not individual models) using the characteristics of individual models?

Kevin949 wrote:So, perusing the rulebook for other similar weapons/abilities and ran across something that might throw a monkey wrench in there for Neo...The "Psychic Shriek" telepathy power is a shooting attack of which you roll 3d6 and subtract the targets leadership to determine how many wounds are caused. So how would you determine the targets leadership in this instance if you had a LD7 unit with a LD10 character leading them?

Well if that is considered a leadership test, we are told to always use the highest leadership in the unit on an individual model basis. If you are just asked to check the units leadership score straight up however, then i have no idea how you'd determine that in accordance with an actual rule.

rigeld2 wrote: How can you roll to wound a unit (as required - because the unit was the target not individual models) using the characteristics of individual models?

it's simple really: As i've already mentioned you just follow the normal procedure starting with 'Roll to Wound' and work your way down the page. Resolving hits against various models does not in any way mean you are specifically targetting those models, just that they are the ones the template has been placed on top of.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote: How can you roll to wound a unit (as required - because the unit was the target not individual models) using the characteristics of individual models?

it's simple really: As i've already mentioned you just follow the normal procedure starting with 'Roll to Wound' and work your way down the page. Resolving hits against various models does not in any way mean you are specifically targetting those models, just that they are the ones the template has been placed on top of.

As you've said before.
Remembering that the target is the unit, how do you determine the target's Leadership value as you're required to do?

By resolving against the leadership of each of the models underneath the template; as per the 'Roll to Wound' section as modified by the Neural Shredders' special rule.

There is no way to determine (currently within the rules) the leadership statistic of a entire unit that i am aware of. Fortunately you do not have to do so.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:So, perusing the rulebook for other similar weapons/abilities and ran across something that might throw a monkey wrench in there for Neo...The "Psychic Shriek" telepathy power is a shooting attack of which you roll 3d6 and subtract the targets leadership to determine how many wounds are caused. So how would you determine the targets leadership in this instance if you had a LD7 unit with a LD10 character leading them?

Well if that is considered a leadership test, we are told to always use the highest leadership in the unit on an individual model basis. If you are just asked to check the units leadership score straight up however, then i have no idea how you'd determine that in accordance with an actual rule.

rigeld2 wrote: How can you roll to wound a unit (as required - because the unit was the target not individual models) using the characteristics of individual models?

it's simple really: As i've already mentioned you just follow the normal procedure starting with 'Roll to Wound' and work your way down the page. Resolving hits against various models does not in any way mean you are specifically targetting those models, just that they are the ones the template has been placed on top of.

It is not a leadership test. For reference, it is the Primaris power listed in BRB pg 423.

What I am getting at here is that the only way to resolve this is majority leadership, just like majority toughness.

What you're referencing is claiming that you can precision shoot with weapons that are never allowed to precision shoot (regardless to who is firing them).

Your claims would also mean that an Abyssal Staff from the necron codex would operate the same way as the neural shredder.

Kevin949 wrote:It is not a leadership test. For reference, it is the Primaris power listed in BRB pg 423.

What I am getting at here is that the only way to resolve this is majority leadership, just like majority toughness.

The problem with that interpretation Kevin is there is no specific rule to suggest that you should do what you are saying. The power itself doesn't indicate that, nor does anything else i'm familiar with in 6th edition. There is literally no established rule that indicates the proper procedure to determine the leadership statistic of an entire unit, as opposed to the models in it.

And yes the necron abyssal staff should work exactly the same way. My argument does not address nor effect precision shots, so i'm going to continue that trend here.

 Neorealist wrote:
There is literally no established rule that indicates the proper procedure to determine the leadership statistic of an entire unit, as opposed to the models in it.

And rather than use the closest analog (majority Leadership) you'd rather make something up out of whole cloth when it's obvious based on another similar case (ID wounds) that they just want you to replace Toughness with Leadership.

That makes sense.

I resent that. I'm not making anything up, i've proposed following the wording of the 'Roll to Wound' section exactly multiple times.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:It is not a leadership test. For reference, it is the Primaris power listed in BRB pg 423.

What I am getting at here is that the only way to resolve this is majority leadership, just like majority toughness.

The problem with that interpretation Kevin is there is no specific rule to suggest that you should do what you are saying. The power itself doesn't indicate that, nor does anything else i'm familiar with in 6th edition. There is literally no established rule that indicates the proper procedure to determine the leadership statistic of an entire unit, as opposed to the models in it.

And yes the necron abyssal staff should work exactly the same way. My argument does not address nor effect precision shots, so i'm going to continue that trend here.

Well, nothing tells us that "The Target" means anything else other than "the enemy unit nominated to receive the attack", and since all three ability/weapons reference rolling to wound against the target, it must mean the entire unit. Nothing in any of the examples allows the circumvention of standard wound allocation either, as all examples circumvent "to hit rolls". There's no mention in any of the rules that each model under the template(s) take the hit, only that the target is hit a number of times equal to the models under the template. There's no allowance for allocating hits by model, and there's no allowance for allocating wounds by model.

It's a case of path of least resistance, and that least resistance is substituting "Leadership" for "Toughness" in all instances of resolving the attack, breaking/bending no rules.

Also I was not saying that your argument addressed precision shots, I'm saying that your argument allowed these weapons to be BETTER than precision shots...weapons that by all rights are never allowed to pick out models individually.

 Neorealist wrote:
I resent that. I'm not making anything up, i've proposed following the wording of the 'Roll to Wound' section exactly multiple times.

You can resent it but doing that requires you to make up rules.
As I've said, your process requires rolling to wound against the Targets toughness/leadership.
Keeping in mind that the Target is the Unit and not individual models, what is the target's leadership?

Kevin949 wrote: Well, nothing tells us that "The Target" means anything else other than "the enemy unit nominated to receive the attack", and since all three ability/weapons reference rolling to wound against the target, it must mean the entire unit. Nothing in any of the examples allows the circumvention of standard wound allocation either, as all examples circumvent "to hit rolls". There's no mention in any of the rules that each model under the template(s) take the hit, only that the target is hit a number of times equal to the models under the template. There's no allowance for allocating hits by model, and there's no allowance for allocating wounds by model.

The Target is defined quite clearly as the 'unit' that is being shot at. Furthermore a Unit is defined quite clearly as being a group of models. These two things are facts.

In addition to this, the rules for templates indicate that they are used to determine how many ''models' have been hit by an attack, specifically the ones underneath the template when it is placed. As per the template rule itself: "...Any models fully or partially under the template are hit..."

Resolving a hit against a target (any target, even a bunch of arbitrary models within a unit) is done via the 'Roll to Wound' section.

I'm not entirely sure you are following my logic, because you are referring to things which have absolutely nothing to do with what i've just said like precision shots and wound allocation. Nowhere do i dispute either of those things happens exactly as normal, so i'm not sure why you are bringing them up.

Your target cannot be a subset of models in the unit. It must be the unit in its entirety as the shooting rules require.

rigeld2 wrote:You can resent it but doing that requires you to make up rules.

indeed. It was your personal opinion on my comments rather than factual information and therefore unwarranted. stick to the facts, if you will.

rigeld2 wrote:As I've said, your process requires rolling to wound against the Targets toughness/leadership.
Keeping in mind that the Target is the Unit and not individual models, what is the target's leadership?

Rolling against a target's toughness is quite obviously covered under the 'Roll to Wound' section. Wether or not that target represents the entire unit or specific portions of said unit is immaterial to how you go about rolling to wound.

Similarly replacing the requirement to roll against toughness with leadership does 'nothing' to change any other part of those rules, and therefore changes nothing regarding how you'd roll to wound other than the target you are rolling against. The Majority toughness rule is a second rule that you need to follow in sequence to the previous one, and one that does not apply if you are rolling against leadership.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You can resent it but doing that requires you to make up rules.

indeed. It was your personal opinion on my comments rather than factual information and therefore unwarranted. stick to the facts, if you will.

Actually it was factual.

rigeld2 wrote:As I've said, your process requires rolling to wound against the Targets toughness/leadership.
Keeping in mind that the Target is the Unit and not individual models, what is the target's leadership?

Rolling against a target's toughness is quite obviously covered under the 'Roll to Wound' section. Wether or not that target represents the entire unit or specific portions of said unit is immaterial to how you go about rolling to wound.

Similarly replacing the requirement to roll against toughness with leadership does 'nothing' to change any other part of those rules, and therefore changes nothing regarding how you'd roll to wound other than the target you are rolling against. The Majority toughness rule is a second rule that you need to follow in sequence to the previous one, and one that does not apply if you are rolling against leadership.

I'm lost now.

How does the Roll to Wound process allow you to wound models again? That was your statement that started this disagreement.

I'm lost now. How does the Roll to Wound process allow you to wound models again? That was your statement that started this disagreement.

*sigh*

Normal:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the toughness stat of the target. If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely)

Shredder:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the leadership stat of the target. Since we are not checking the toughness of the target, ignore the next line: If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely):

Does that help to outline my thought processes here?

Right - and what is the Leadership of the target, remembering that your target is not individual models?

The leaderships of the models recieving the hits.

 Neorealist wrote:
The leaderships of the models recieving the hits.

How is that the target's leadership? Why are you "targeting" individual models instead of the unit as a whole when you had to target the unit as a whole to fire the weapon in the first place?

I'm not 'targetting' anything other than the unit as a whole. I'm simply rolling against the leadership of the models which have taken the hits as i do not have a 'majority toughness' rule analogue that says differently.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not 'targetting' anything other than the unit as a whole. I'm simply rolling against the leadership of the models which have taken the hits as i do not have a 'majority toughness' rule analogue that says differently.

But the roll to wound process requires (as in, uses the word) that you roll against the target's Toughness/Leadership.
You are absolutely not targeting the individual models, you're targeting the unit as a whole. Therefore you are required to use the Leadership of the unit as a whole and absolutely not individual models.

the models the unit is comprised of are 'the target' including those that took the hits. That said, i've said this to you before. Given how circular this argument has gotten, i'm going to presume i've said my case and say no more on this.

 Neorealist wrote:
the models the unit is comprised of are 'the target' including those that took the hits. That said, i've said this to you before. Given how circular this argument has gotten, i'm going to presume i've said my case and say no more on this.

No, "the target" is the unit as a whole and can only ever be the unit as a whole.
Or are you going to find some rule allowing you to target specific models?

Neo's position has nothing to do with targeting. He claims that using the Majority Toughness rule on weapons that wound against leadership is incorrect per RAW, and that individual models under a template should use their individual leadership to determine hits only, as there is no corresponding Majority Leadership rule in the wounding process.

More directly, he asks why should Leadership be substituted into Majority Toughness, rather than having the rule be dropped altogether from the process, since it doesn't apply.

Then, assuming Majority Toughness is dropped, he posits that the only way to determine the unit's leadership is on a model by model basis.

RAI I agree that it should hit on majority lead. RAW I don't really find any reason to completely refute this explicitly, although I feel that there is no basis for determining unit leadership model by model. In the absence of a rule for determining a single value for the unit's leadership, the weapon doesn't function.

The rules for shooting attacks describe only one target, and that is the target unit. It is only logical to calculate the target's LD just like you would calculate the target's T. I don't think creating a whole new process just for these weapons is what the FAQ intended.

 Neorealist wrote:
the models the unit is comprised of are 'the target' including those that took the hits. That said, i've said this to you before. Given how circular this argument has gotten, i'm going to presume i've said my case and say no more on this.

Yet you are not resolving the wound against the TARGET, you have stated so!

You are resolving the wound against a SUBSET of the target unit; specifically you are applying it against the models hit, which for all but trivial cases is not the whole unit.

So, again - where do you have permission to select only a SUBSET of the target when rolling to wound? Page and paragraph, noting that NOTHIGN in rolling to wound allows you to do this, so you must provide a citation elsewhere

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Selicate wrote:
Neo's position has nothing to do with targeting. He claims that using the Majority Toughness rule on weapons that wound against leadership is incorrect per RAW, and that individual models under a template should use their individual leadership to determine hits only, as there is no corresponding Majority Leadership rule in the wounding process.

More directly, he asks why should Leadership be substituted into Majority Toughness, rather than having the rule be dropped altogether from the process, since it doesn't apply.

Then, assuming Majority Toughness is dropped, he posits that the only way to determine the unit's leadership is on a model by model basis.

RAI I agree that it should hit on majority lead. RAW I don't really find any reason to completely refute this explicitly, although I feel that there is no basis for determining unit leadership model by model. In the absence of a rule for determining a single value for the unit's leadership, the weapon doesn't function.

I understand his point. I'm saying that it is illegal to go on a model by model basis as you are required to roll against the units leadership.
He's made up this "model by model" basis out of nothing and has no rules support for it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

Selicate wrote:

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

Please read the rest of the thread.

Selicate wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

You have 2 choices.
A) The target has no Leadership score and therefore cannot be wounded. We know this is true because you must use the target's characteristic to roll against, and the target is absolutely the unit as a whole, not individual models.
B) You use Majority Leadership just like you use Leadership instead of Toughness for ID checks.

One of those options makes the weapon useless. The other is an obvious follow from prior rulings.

Selicate wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

RAW you have no method to wound a unit based on the units Leadership, as you have no ability to find the leadership of the target. NEos "method" has no rules basis whatsoever, as it relies on perverting the phrase "target" which means "unit" into allowing you to pick out a subset of the unit to roll against; this has absolutely no rules backing anywhere and additionally has no comparable usage in another situation. It is an entirely made up method which only "works" because the weapon uses a flamer - if it were a normal roll-to-hit weapon you would have absolutely no ability to determine the models you have arbitrarily decided you must roll to-wound against. This inconsistency of application is another clue as to why it is a poor argument.

So RAW the weapon is unable to wound. THis is slightly unreasonable, so you instead determine the Targets, meaning UNIT as a whole and NOT a subset, leadership value using Majority Toughness - method instead. Given that you are told to essentially substitute "leadership" for "toughness" anyway, this is the most analogous situation - you havent been forced to create an entirely new method to wound the unit, unlike Neo

Neo - please explain how you have gone from *unit* entire to *unit* subset-of and your rules allowance to do so. Page and paragraph. Failure to do so means you will have conceded the argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

RAW you have no method to wound a unit based on the units Leadership, as you have no ability to find the leadership of the target. NEos "method" has no rules basis whatsoever, as it relies on perverting the phrase "target" which means "unit" into allowing you to pick out a subset of the unit to roll against; this has absolutely no rules backing anywhere and additionally has no comparable usage in another situation. It is an entirely made up method which only "works" because the weapon uses a flamer - if it were a normal roll-to-hit weapon you would have absolutely no ability to determine the models you have arbitrarily decided you must roll to-wound against. This inconsistency of application is another clue as to why it is a poor argument.

I already agree with this as previously mentioned, I'm not advocating Neo's method.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So RAW the weapon is unable to wound. THis is slightly unreasonable, so you instead determine the Targets, meaning UNIT as a whole and NOT a subset, leadership value using Majority Toughness - method instead. Given that you are told to essentially substitute "leadership" for "toughness" anyway, this is the most analogous situation - you havent been forced to create an entirely new method to wound the unit, unlike Neo

I wanted to see if by strict RAW the weapon doesn't function properly, and it looks like that is agreed. Majority lead seems RAI.

Well, Rules-as-we-assume-they-wanted-them-to-actually-have-any-effect

Majority Ld is the only reasonable way to do this, for the weapon to have any actual use in the game.

 Neorealist wrote:

I'm lost now. How does the Roll to Wound process allow you to wound models again? That was your statement that started this disagreement.

*sigh*

Normal:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the toughness stat of the target. If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely)

Shredder:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the leadership stat of the target. Since we are not checking the toughness of the target, ignore the next line: If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely):

Does that help to outline my thought processes here?

By this logic would it not make sense to conclude that you test against majority toughness instead of leadership where different toughness targets are present.

my reasoning follows

majority toughness is not changed to majority leadership
majority toughness rule still applies if lord toughness differs from unit since the unit does trigger the majority toughness rules.
toughness check replaced by leadership.(what leadership?)

I don't understand how you justified "Since we are not checking the toughness of the target, ignore the next line" Nothing in any of the text stops this applying as far as I can see.

Needless to say I would play this as majority leadership.

dragqueeninspace wrote: By this logic would it not make sense to conclude that you test against majority toughness instead of leadership where different toughness targets are present.

yes, you would test against the majority toughness were you rolling against the toughness of the unit. You are not as the shredder changes that to a roll against leadership instead.

Ergo, you cannot roll against the leadership of a unit using the rule of majority toughness. (as that is nonsensical) You would, at the very least, need to change the majority toughness rule to substitute leadership instead, and it is my contention that no such permission to do that is currently given within the context of the rules.

Sure the game should work properly, and i've no doubt they had something like that in mind when they added weapons like the neural shredder and abyssal staff to the game. However currently, they do not function properly within the context of RAW as there is no defined way to determine the leadership of an entire unit as a whole.

I chose to resolve that by indicating the template rules prompt to you to assign hits to the models under the template (which i still contend is a perfectly legitimate way to read the rules)to bypass this issue. Those who have indicated this argument would not work if discussing a non-template weapon are correct of course, but one must work with what has been given.

Yes, which is why instead of making up an entirely new method, that only works on templates, how about using what they have been hinting at, repeatedly: treat Ld as toughness.

Additionally the template rules say no such thing - they do not override the rules requiring you to target an entire unit

 Neorealist wrote:

dragqueeninspace wrote: By this logic would it not make sense to conclude that you test against majority toughness instead of leadership where different toughness targets are present.

yes, you would test against the majority toughness were you rolling against the toughness of the unit. You are not as the shredder changes that to a roll against leadership instead.

Ergo, you cannot roll against the leadership of a unit using the rule of majority toughness. (as that is nonsensical) You would, at the very least, need to change the majority toughness rule to substitute leadership instead, and it is my contention that no such permission to do that is currently given within the context of the rules.

Sure the game should work properly, and i've no doubt they had something like that in mind when they added weapons like the neural shredder and abyssal staff to the game. However currently, they do not function properly within the context of RAW as there is no defined way to determine the leadership of an entire unit as a whole.

I chose to resolve that by indicating the template rules prompt to you to assign hits to the models under the template (which i still contend is a perfectly legitimate way to read the rules)to bypass this issue. Those who have indicated this argument would not work if discussing a non-template weapon are correct of course, but one must work with what has been given.

edit: i suppose you could roll against the leadership(s?) of the models with the majority toughness of the unit or roll against that of every model in the unit and average it out somehow; but those are as much of an unsupported leap in decision-making prcoess as is substituting anything into the majority toughness rule without explicit permission to do so.

....but is still much more consistent than making up a new process that only works for templates, has absolutely no comparable method anywhere else in the rules, and ignores the FAQs that give you a really strong indication that they want you to think "ld" not "toughness".

nosferatu1001 wrote: Additionally the template rules say no such thing - they do not override the rules requiring you to target an entire unit

Yes they do. As i've already indicated they tell you quite explicitly that the models under the template are the ones that are hit.

Referencing the 'Roll to Wound' rules indicates how to resolve hits against the target.

Since the 'models that are hit' + 'hits are resolved against the target' = models that are hit are resolved against the target, we have no problem proceeding with the rules from that point forward.

I'd also like to note i'm not including any sort of senseless posturing about you 'losing the argument' or somesuch if you are unable to respond in a cognisant fashion. Such is so utterly a complete waste of the time of anyone reading it that I lack the fundamental understanding of why you'd even begin to do so.

 Neorealist wrote:
the normal 'To Wound' rule: "...compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart..."

If you resolve the above with the word 'leadership' instead of 'toughness' , what do you have?

If we are substituting Toughness for Leadership, then why stop here? Why not substitute the word Leadership into the Multiple Toughness Values rule next door? Then what do you have?

phantommaster wrote:If we are substituting Toughness for Leadership, then why stop here? Why not substitute the word Leadership into the Multiple Toughness Values rule next door? Then what do you have?

Something that actually works, as opposed to the rules as written?

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Additionally the template rules say no such thing - they do not override the rules requiring you to target an entire unit

Yes they do. As i've already indicated they tell you quite explicitly that the models under the template are the ones that are hit.

Correct. Now - since the Roll to Wound rules require you to roll to wound against your target - wait, what's the target again? Could you clarify that for me?

When would you ever use the Multiple Toughness rule, Neo? Even when rolling To Wound normally, nothing tells you to use the Multiple Toughness rule. The Multiple Toughness rule invokes itself when values are different for toughness, and the ability definitely states it replaces "toughness" with "leadership."

As "Roll to wound" is the heading and both "Multiple Toughness Values" and "The Wound Pool" are subheadings, I see no reason to replace only some mentions of "Toughness" with "Leadership" when resolving hits.

The majority toughness rule tells us itself when to use it. Heck, they even provide an example with some orks; a runt herd and some grots. To paraphrase: "Use this rule when the target unit has models within it that have different Toughness characteristics"

 Neorealist wrote:
The majority toughness rule tells us itself when to use it. Heck, they even provide an example with some orks; a runt herd and some grots. To paraphrase: "Use this rule when the target unit has models within it that have different Toughness characteristics"

So you think it should be applied when units hit by a neural shredder have differing toughnesses?

Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Additionally the template rules say no such thing - they do not override the rules requiring you to target an entire unit

Yes they do. As i've already indicated they tell you quite explicitly that the models under the template are the ones that are hit.

...which does not alter the target, which is the unit. If you disagree, please find a rule stating otherwise

Neorealist wrote:Referencing the 'Roll to Wound' rules indicates how to resolve hits against the target.

WHich, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and you keep ignoring, is the unit *as a whole*. There is never any permission anywhere in the blast or template rules to alter that the target is the whole unit.

Please stop repeating somethign you must know to be false as if it were fact.

Neorealist wrote:Since the 'models that are hit' + 'hits are resolved against the target' = models that are hit are resolved against the target, we have no problem proceeding with the rules from that point forward.

That formula entirely ignores the actual written rules, which never ever tell you you can subsitute the target meaning UNIT for target being "models under the template". That only defines what is hit, not what is targetted. What is targetted is, and remains desptie your repeated rule-less assertions otherwise, the whole unit.

Neorealist wrote:I'd also like to note i'm not including any sort of senseless posturing about you 'losing the argument' or somesuch if you are unable to respond in a cognisant fashion. Such is so utterly a complete waste of the time of anyone reading it that I lack the fundamental understanding of why you'd even begin to do so.

Because, by now, you have repeated the same rule-less assertion - that a template changes the target from unit-entire to unit-subset - without being to back it up with a single actual rules quote, so many times that it is getting annoying having to constantly ask you to actually support your position with some real rules. Not made up rules, actually written in the rulebook rules. It isnt senseless posturing, it is trying to point out you only get so many times of asserting a falsehood before you are called on it.

Follow the tenets. Page and paragraph which states something like "when a template hits a unit, the models under the template are the target of that template". Or, you coudl concede finally that no such rule actually exists, no matter how many times you repeat the rule that tells you how to work out how many hits a template gets when fired as if it has any relevance to this topic.

You have absolutely no rules backing for your newly made up out of whole cloth method, a method that cannot work with non-template weapons, which is also a method that entirely ignores the analogous situation that GW keep hinting at: namely treat Ld as toughness whenever needed

RAW the weapon does not work. If you want it to work, and for other leadership - weapons that may appear that do use non-marker or template methods for rolling to hit to work in a consistent fashion, then using Majority Leadership in place of Majority Toughness is the most sensible option, as it requires making up the fewest rules.

Reading this with interest. Sorry to hijack the thread but can the neural shredder ever cause instant death, say if a IG psyker squad had dropped the leadership of a squad to less than half the shredder's strength? Thanks

 Daedricbob wrote:
Reading this with interest. Sorry to hijack the thread but can the neural shredder ever cause instant death, say if a IG psyker squad had dropped the leadership of a squad to less than half the shredder's strength? Thanks

Yes, or low leadership models like grotesques.

 Daedricbob wrote:
Reading this with interest. Sorry to hijack the thread but can the neural shredder ever cause instant death, say if a IG psyker squad had dropped the leadership of a squad to less than half the shredder's strength? Thanks[/quoteYes, faq for all editions makes this clear

It is why we were saying it is so clear that you modify M. Toughness rule, because they tell you to consider Leadership as equivalent for everything to do with this weapon.