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.

Does the target of Okkam's Mindrazor use the General's Leadership as their strength stat if within 12"?

Okkam's Mindrazor:

BRB pg. 498 wrote: ...models in the target unit use their leadership instead of their strength when rolling to wound.

Inspiring Presence:

BGB pg. 107 wrote: Providing that the General is not fleeing, all friendly units within 12" use his leadership instead of their own (so rally your General first!).

Well Okkam's Razor doesn't say your unmodified leadership so it looks legitimate to use the generals leadership. . .

Yep, you have it right: you must use the generals leadership (it isnt optional)

Ouch!

From the quote, doesn't look like it affects the armor save modifier though.

Yes, it effects armour save modifiers.

Using Leadship value to Wound instead of strength means exactly that - you have wwounded as if you were Strength (ld)

The strength of the attack hasn't changed, the attacking models are merely using "their Leadership instead of Strength when rolling to wound".

Since armor saves aren't part of rolling to wound, those would go on the attacks' regular strength and not their leadership.

"Armour save modifiers are based on the strength of the shooting weapon" [the assault rules refer to this section)

If you are using your leadership in place of your strength, then you replace "strength of the shooting weapon" with "leadership" and you therefore modify the armour save accordingly.

The Strength of the attack is tyhe models leadership; nowhere are you given permission to use the Strength of the model, which was NOT used in the attack, to modify armour.

The only time you are given permission to use the leadership for strength is when 'rolling to wound'.

The strength of the attack is the same as it was before.

If the spell had said that 'all attacks use the models leadership in place of it's strength value' or something similar, then it would affect the armor save modifier. Since the spell is specific to only using it when you are rolling to wound, then it doesn't affect the armor save modifier.

I thought the same thing, though after going to page 51 and reading Taking Saving Throws I am 100% sure that it will affect your armor save. The last sentence of the second paragraph reads, "Remember, that wounds caused by strength 4 or higher inflict a saving throw modifier on armor saves."

...and the armour save modifier is defined as using the strength of the attack.

You did NOT attack at S3 (for an elf / human) - find any evidence where you did that. You did not, you attacked at Strength (Ld value) and therefore you MUST use that value.

You cannot use S3 (or whatever) to determine armour savbe modfifier, as you did not attack with that strength.

nosferatu1001 wrote:...and the armour save modifier is defined as using the strength of the attack.

You did NOT attack at S3 (for an elf / human) - find any evidence where you did that. You did not, you attacked at Strength (Ld value) and therefore you MUST use that value.

You cannot use S3 (or whatever) to determine armour savbe modfifier, as you did not attack with that strength.

And your argument is completely without foundation.

What does the spell say, again? "Models in the target unit use their Leadership instead of Strength when rolling to wound with all close combat attacks..." Where in that text does it say that they have attacked at Strength (Ld value)?

S3 Ld9 wood elf under the effects of that spell is making a S3 attack which happens to roll on the '9' row instead of the '3' row and there won't be an armor save modifier because it's only a S3 attack. It's still a S3 attack because the spell doesn't say to change the strength of the attack. The spell simply completely ignores the attackers strength and uses something completely different when rolling to wound.

page 498 wrote:Models in the target unit use their leadership instead of strength when rolling to wound...

You're not actually changing your strength in any way, merely what stat you use on the to wound roll chart. Strength is the only stat that modifies armour saves, ergo they take the save determined by the attacking models strength test.

/thread

The Defenestrator wrote:

page 498 wrote:Models in the target unit use their leadership instead of strength when rolling to wound...

You're not actually changing your strength in any way, merely what stat you use on the to wound roll chart. Strength is the only stat that modifies armour saves, ergo they take the save determined by the attacking models strength test.

/thread

I would like to remind you that the way GW writes these rules is that they often say +1 strength when rolling to wound when they actually just mean +1 strength. For example, Sword of Might in the last edition. Like others pointed out on other forums, I'm pretty sure we all modified armour saves accordingly with our Swords of Might.

solkan wrote:And your argument is completely without foundation.

What does the spell say, again? "Models in the target unit use their Leadership instead of Strength when rolling to wound with all close combat attacks..." Where in that text does it say that they have attacked at Strength (Ld value)?

S3 Ld9 wood elf under the effects of that spell is making a S3 attack which happens to roll on the '9' row instead of the '3' row and there won't be an armor save modifier because it's only a S3 attack. It's still a S3 attack because the spell doesn't say to change the strength of the attack. The spell simply completely ignores the attackers strength and uses something completely different when rolling to wound.

Just trying to lighten up the mood. Its a damn game. You and your opponent make a decision 5 min before the game, jeez.

ITT: People who are scared of spells


Met up at the local GW for a game and asked the manager there. He said it affects the armor save. there you have it. As is was plain to see people still needed gw's permission and they now have it. Enjoy


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's like saying your kevlar vest could stop a tank round. All other modifiers to str affect saves. This does too. Arguing whether or not it should be nerfed is another story however it is what it is and it's delicious in the hands of Teclis

Yep, it does affect armour saves and will do at a host of UK events where I have asked the TO about it.

Ideally another FAQ candidate.

Let's just close with the observation that it's well within Nosferatu1001's right to rule the way he wants, even if he completely makes up rules for the spell. I, likewise, promise to include a statement saying, "Nosferatu1001 is wrong" in the materials for next tournament that I help run.

solkan wrote:Let's just close with the observation that it's well within Nosferatu1001's right to rule the way he wants, even if he completely makes up rules for the spell. I, likewise, promise to include a statement saying, "Nosferatu1001 is wrong" in the materials for next tournament that I help run.

Interesting semantics

GW employees tell me his ruling is correct

You are wrong but will probably refuse to acknowledge that


Plain and simple it DOES affect your saves

People scared of the big bad shadow spell should play 40k or a similar game where the mean ol spell can't hurt them

The correct banter on this topic is: Is this spell overpowered?

GW employees are not 100% correct. In fact, your typical Red Shirt is a clueless dolt. There are some who are actually correct a lot of the times. There are even more who think the correct answer is C) Derp.

Don't use them as a basis for a rules argument.

Davall wrote:GW employees are not 100% correct. In fact, your typical Red Shirt is a clueless dolt. There are some who are actually correct a lot of the times. There are even more who think the correct answer is C) Derp.

Don't use them as a basis for a rules argument.

Everyone I know uses it that way because it is obvious it does. But we'll see in the FAQ soon enough and then this pointless debate will end.

solkan wrote:Let's just close with the observation that it's well within Nosferatu1001's right to rule the way he wants, even if he completely makes up rules for the spell. I, likewise, promise to include a statement saying, "Nosferatu1001 is wrong" in the materials for next tournament that I help run.

reading fail. I never said I would *rule* that way, as I am not the TO - however I do know a large number of them, and they are all in agreement that you are the one who is wrong, and you are ignoring the basic rules for the spell.

Hence why I said it needed FAQ'ing, so you can be convinced.

I think my reading error is understandable, given it was a choice between assuming you had typed incorrectly and that your argument had ended with roughly "the tournament judges say so".

Are you really the same person who posts in the 40k YMDC?!?! Should someone contact the police to find the real nosferatu1001?

No, my argument was stated previously, your rebuttal is not however correct - however in terms of real life(tm) it is irrelevant to me, as both locally and at a whole load of tournaments they are ruling correctly.

It is also why I said for the sake of clarity it should be FAQ'd, because your reading of the rule has some merit. There is sufficient cause for doubt that a FAQ (well, errata would be better....) for the BRB makes sense.

Is this when we start the bonus debate round of "Ha, ha, I was right!" vs. "Ha, ha, they had to change it to make you right!" with optional bits complaining about the changes?

Edit: In other words, the wording has been changed so that Leadership is used instead of Strength for all attacks, eliminating the point of contention.

So basically this went from the best spell in the game to the most pointless spell in the game?

I just checked the FAQ and, without the rulebook at work, can't make out what the clarification does.

I'm assuming the leadership value is only used when rolling to wound, not modifying armor saves?

FAQ is out.

According to the FAQ the words "when rolling To Wound with" are changed to "for" so now leadership is used "for all close combat attacks."

Meaning you use your LD to modify their armor save.

Making it freaking awesome.