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.

elite_dannux wrote:No they are not synonymos in the game. Big difference.

A REDUCTION is not classed as a MODIFIER in the game rules.

Then wtf is? A modifier is anything that changes the leadership value. A reduction is a change in leadership value. Stubborn ignores modifiers of leadership value.

Why are people still arguing over language in a GW title? This isn't a clear cut game like magic. This game seriously lacks keywords and other things that make gak like this a non issue. There is no concise language in the codexes or BRB. They constantly use different words for the same thing so this argument that a reduction isn't a modifer by some magic RAW is insane because it opens a whole new can of worms. There is no right answer to this issue as of now. GW hasn't even made it clear on how modifiers work thru prescience or order of resolution since the Lash Whip and Halbard issue got resolved in two different ways

DODcrazy wrote:

elite_dannux wrote:No they are not synonymos in the game. Big difference.

A REDUCTION is not classed as a MODIFIER in the game rules.

Then wtf is? A modifier is anything that changes the leadership value. A reduction is a change in leadership value. Stubborn ignores modifiers of leadership value.

No. a modifier is when you add or subtact from the Die roll.

Theduke07 wrote:Why are people still arguing over language in a GW title? This isn't a clear cut game like magic. This game seriously lacks keywords and other things that make gak like this a non issue. There is no concise language in the codexes or BRB. They constantly use different words for the same thing so this argument that a reduction isn't a modifer by some magic RAW is insane because it opens a whole new can of worms. There is no right answer to this issue as of now. GW hasn't even made it clear on how modifiers work thru prescience or order of resolution since the Lash Whip and Halbard issue got resolved in two different ways

The (apparent) lack of a GW corporate manual of style is pretty baffling/inexcusable at this point.

It is pretty simple, stubborn ignores negative modifiers for morale test, and according to pg 44 of the rulebook, the only time you take morale test is for 25% casualties, tank shocks, and losing assaults. So for those three test, a stubborn unit affected by weaken resolve will be at base leadership. However, for any other leadership test they are required to take, i.e. pinning, psykic test, ect, they are at the modified leadership.

Actually a modifier is any number added, subtracted, multiplied, or divided from the Primary. In this case the primary is the leadership, and the modifier is the (-X).

DODcrazy wrote:

elite_dannux wrote:No they are not synonymos in the game. Big difference.

A REDUCTION is not classed as a MODIFIER in the game rules.

Then wtf is? A modifier is anything that changes the leadership value. A reduction is a change in leadership value. Stubborn ignores modifiers of leadership value.

So Stubborn ignores bonuses to leadership as well - that's cool. Thanks for the information.

well sutbborn ignores negative modifiers ^^

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Sir_Prometheus wrote:So guys, look, the truth is, it's "unknown", or undecided, like whether a virus is alive or not.

No it's not. The truth is the Leadership value is reduced with WR. THAT is a NEGATIVE modifier. Stubborn ignores negative modifiers, ergo, Stubborn ignores WR. There is no uncertain here. The language in both rules are clear and precise, no ambiguity at all.

Statements like this really bug me, even though I agree with your final conclusion. Obviously there's some ambiguity and uncertainty, otherwise people wouldn't be arguing about it.

By saying "this is like THIS, it's unquestionable!" you're basically calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Don't do that.

Yea that's true. Seems like the unstoppable force and the immovable object.

I think stubborn should work, but I can understand the other side.

I'm glad this has never come up in a game I have played before.

Usually GW is inconsistent, but not here. If it was meant to be a negative modifier, it would say so specifically. There are a plethora of examples of them using precise language with regards to modifiers and they always use that specific word. Rad Grenades and Weaken Resolve change the base statistic, which in game terms is not the same as a negative modifier. Just because these are similar concepts does not mean they are the same, thus the rules are handled differently.

If Weaken Resolve said "the enemy units Leadership suffers a -X modifier where X is the number of Psykers you control." Sure! Stubborn works! Sadly the rules language is not such and makes no mention of modifers, thus it isn't one. Simple as that.

don_mondo wrote:

DODcrazy wrote:

elite_dannux wrote:No they are not synonymos in the game. Big difference.

A REDUCTION is not classed as a MODIFIER in the game rules.

Then wtf is? A modifier is anything that changes the leadership value. A reduction is a change in leadership value. Stubborn ignores modifiers of leadership value.

No. a modifier is when you add or subtact from the Die roll.

em_en_oh_pee wrote:Usually GW is inconsistent, but not here. If it was meant to be a negative modifier, it would say so specifically. There are a plethora of examples of them using precise language with regards to modifiers and they always use that specific word. Rad Grenades and Weaken Resolve change the base statistic, which in game terms is not the same as a negative modifier. Just because these are similar concepts does not mean they are the same, thus the rules are handled differently.

If Weaken Resolve said "the enemy units Leadership suffers a -X modifier where X is the number of Psykers you control." Sure! Stubborn works! Sadly the rules language is not such and makes no mention of modifers, thus it isn't one. Simple as that.

Can we try something more convincing than "it's simple", "if it was meant to do that it would say so'? A 'modifier' is never clearly defined as a game term, (like turns, deployment, etc are) in the BRB. The word is only used casually when describing the math of morale and the like so that it open to interpretation. There a a plethora of inconsistent use of language in the game and even more FAQ rulings that go against their own RAW. There are no is no solid resolution for a lot of stat modifiers they keep throwing in the game only to have to FAQ them a month later. There is no way to know RAI until there is a clear FAQ ruling. There is nothing 'simple' about this at all. If all the rules were to work as intended we wouldn't have an issue or need for FAQs.

Theduke07 wrote: A 'modifier' is never clearly defined as a game term, (like turns, deployment, etc are) in the BRB.

Disagree. I find the description on page 2 to be quite clear.

The information on page 2 specifically talks about modifying dice rolls. Stubborn only mentions negative modifiers. I would argue (if I wasn't so lazy), that changing a static value is a modifier.

And I would argue that modifiers are only things that modify the dice roll.

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this one and hope that someday GW puts it in an FAQ.

don_mondo wrote:And I would argue that modifiers are only things that modify the dice roll.

And without adequate support. All page 2 does is describe dice rolls may be modified and details the nomenclature generally used. This doesn't limit the use of modifiers solely to dice rolls. Further, there is no specific definition of modifier as you describe it.

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this one and hope that someday GW puts it in an FAQ.

No need since there isn't any ambiguity in the use of modifiers.

I don't see inconsistent use of the term modifier. In the rulebook, its pretty clearly used dozens of times. Why would Weaken Resolve be a modifer without using said language? Find examples of modifiers without the term modifier involved and I might be more apt to see the other side, but I haven't seen any examples thus far.

Okay I'm going to ask for citations on dozens of clear examples since you presented the evidence first. And different language comes from the different authors working together while in the codexes the books were pretty much one authors work with support.

I cited an example. Your turn to give some proof on your argument.

What examples? I don't see any quotes from the BRB.

First page of this thread I cited just one example.


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

p44, BRB

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

p58, BRB

Other wording includes "penalty", but this is still not the wording of Weaken Resolve, which "reduces".

"...the target immediately takes a Leadership test with a -4 modifier..."

Blood Angels Codex

Examples.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

I think we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this one and hope that someday GW puts it in an FAQ.

No need since there isn't any ambiguity in the use of modifiers.

Son, did you hear me? I just went and told how you can't go saying "there's no ambiguity". There clearly is, or else we wouldn't be arguing about it. All you're doing when you say, "there's no ambiguity" is calling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid" on the sly.

It's rude, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped.