Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.