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.

... Only the Rites of Battle rule doesn't ever "happen." It does not change anything stat wise, it merely lets a unit use someone else's stat.

Padixon nails it I think. Souless changes a stat. RoB changes which stat you use, specifically one on someone else's line.

Except that Soulless doesn't change the unit's Leadership, it simply makes the unit's Leadership count as 7. Where the unit's Leadership counts as 7, it uses Ld7 for Morale, Pinning, and Leadership tests.

Except when it uses someone else's Ld.

Unfortunately, Wehrkind, that is incorrect.

Regardless of whose Leadership value is being used by the unit, whether it is the Company Captain's or that of the model with the highest Leadership value in the unit, Soulless makes it count as Ld7.

Exactly Nurglitch...

Soulless makes it LD7 regardless of whatever else happens, obviously including RoB

Also yeah, OF COURSE none of the people at GW except for one person knows anything.

but the unofficial Rulez fellas' and customer service reps opinions don't actually count for anything.

EDIT: And Sourclams, your opinions then count for what exactly...?

Nurglitch wrote:Unfortunately, Wehrkind, that is incorrect.

Regardless of whose Leadership value is being used by the unit, whether it is the Company Captain's or that of the model with the highest Leadership value in the unit, Soulless makes it count as Ld7.

This is wrong. Soulless does not say that the unit "counts as having LD7 for moral, pinning, and leadership tests," at which point it would be overriding the RoB rules. It also does not specify a time that the effect takes place, that may in some way suggest that it overrides RoB.

All that soulless does is say that the unit "counts as LD 7," but remember that marines usually "count as LD 8." It doesn't matter what their own leadership is, as they get to use their company master's leadership anyways.

Again, the rules for soulless do not say that "the unit must use LD7" just that they "count as LD 7." However it says "unit"; the unit counts as LD7. This is why it doesn't matter, the unit is not using it's own leadership value, it is using a different leadership value that is outside the realm affected by soulless. The units effectively do not take these tests, their leader does it for them, and since he isn't affected by soulless neither are tests taken by these units.

I understand where your argument is coming from, but like sourclams said you're simply reading too much into the rules. Soulless makes the UNIT count as LD 7, it does not require that they use their own leadership for all tests. There is no clause in the rules for Soulless that say it swoops in after RoB is initiated to replace that borrowed leadership, simply that it alters the unit's base leadership value by making it count as something lower.

I fail to see where it says it DOESN'T replace borrowed leadership, or that it CAN'T change the "borrowed" value now being used.

That said, I don't want to become a big arguer in this (even though I am a Necron player, I have never played against DA), but I WOULD really like to see this get resolved, for both sides, so that this kind of argument doesn't happen ingame.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath:

I'm not reading anything into the rules, I'm simply showing what the rules entail where we follow their text, and they entail that a unit affected by both the Rites of Battle rule and the Soulless rule count their Leadership as 7.

Let's go through this carefully:

The Soulless rule does not replace the unit's Leadership, and the Rites of Battle rule does not let the unit borrow the Company Captain's Leadership. The terms in those rules are 'counts as' and 'use', respectively.

The Leadership Tests and Morale Checks rules treat using a Leadership value and having a Leadership value as equivalent, so the argument that the unit tests on L10 instead of Ld7 when the Company Captain in unaffected by Soulless is invalid.

Here is why:

The Morale Checks rule simply refers to the unit's Leadership.

The Leadership Tests rule employs the term 'use', so that when a unit takes a Leadership test, like a Morale check, it uses a particular Leadership value to judge whether it passes or fails that test. Normally, i.e. according to the basic rules for Leadership Tests, the unit uses the highest Leadership value that it has available among its members.

So, since having and using are equivalent by the rules, arguments predicated on their difference are invalid where the rules are concerned.

Since the Rites of Battle rule permits a unit of Dark Angels to use a Company Captain's Leadership in the specified circumstances, to use a Leadership value from outside of that unit's members, and the Leadership value that it uses is the unit's Leadership value, that makes the Company Captain's Leadership value the unit's Leadership value in those circumstances.

Except that when the unit is also affected by the Soulless rule, it counts as having Ld7. Regardless of whose Leadership value is being used, it counts as Ld7 in all circumstances.

What you say might be true sourclams but what eight ball and Jeff Armstrong have said should not so easily be brushed off. It is the closest to a "official" answer we have so far. We can all hold out for the FAQ but that answer might be a glimpse of what we could see.

Nurglitch wrote:The Soulless rule does not replace the unit's Leadership, and the Rites of Battle rule does not let the unit borrow the Company Captain's Leadership. The terms in those rules are 'counts as' and 'use', respectively.

The Leadership Tests and Morale Checks rules treat using a Leadership value and having a Leadership value as equivalent, so the argument that the unit tests on L10 instead of Ld7 when the Company Captain in unaffected by Soulless is invalid.

This is something you have simply asserted. The rule you referenced explains a leadership test, whereby you roll 2d6 and compare it to the unit's leadership. However, RoB lets you use the Chapter Master's leadership instead of the unit's leadership.

Soulless also affects the unit's leadership. However, again, the unit's leadership isn't at play. The unit is instead using the master's leadership, which the rules for soulless do not affect (he is not within the range, and it doesn't say "the unit and any unit whose leadership they are using."

Nurglitch wrote:The Morale Checks rule simply refers to the unit's Leadership.

They do, and the codex-specific rule Rites of Battle overrides this, and allows them to use another units leadership

Nurglitch wrote:The Leadership Tests rule employs the term 'use', so that when a unit takes a Leadership test, like a Morale check, it uses a particular Leadership value to judge whether it passes or fails that test. Normally, i.e. according to the basic rules for Leadership Tests, the unit uses the highest Leadership value that it has available among its members.

The highest leadership value is the unit's leadership, but remember we're not talking about the unit's leadership anymore, we're talking about the master's leadership.

Nurglitch wrote:So, since having and using are equivalent by the rules, arguments predicated on their difference are invalid where the rules are concerned.

Back this up. You simply asserted it based on a default scenario, which Rites of Battle overrides.

Nurglitch wrote:Since the Rites of Battle rule permits a unit of Dark Angels to use a Company Captain's Leadership in the specified circumstances, to use a Leadership value from outside of that unit's members, and the Leadership value that it uses is the unit's Leadership value, that makes the Company Captain's Leadership value the unit's Leadership value in those circumstances.

But it is not the unit's leadership, it is the Chapter Master's leadership. There is no "replace" in the rules, there is simply a "use" in the rules. All equivalencies you have drawn between these two terms you asserted on your own. "Use" and "replace" are different in that the latter changes the value on the unit's stat line, while the former alters the way a test is taken to "use" a different unit's leadership.

Nurglitch wrote:Except that when the unit is also affected by the Soulless rule, it counts as having Ld7. Regardless of whose Leadership value is being used, it counts as Ld7 in all circumstances.

This is the crux of the argument between the two sides. Actually, I should make that three sides.

You are arguing that "using = having," and that the master grants ownership of his leadership value to the unit, which is then modified by soulless as it is now "their" leadership, which always counts as 7.

Another side is simply saying that the unit always counts as having LD 7 for the purposes of taking tests.

The rest of us are arguing that since soulless only affects the unit's leadership, and RoB allows an alternative to the unit using their own leadership, it circumvents soulless since the pariah is not in range to affect the chapter master.

I disagree with your argument because I do not think that there is anything in the rules to back up "using = having," and that assuming that it is the case in the absence of such a specific rule is unreasonable. DA marines HAVE a leadership of 8, but they instead USE their leader's leadership of 10.

I disagree with the second argument because of the wording in soulless. It states that the unit counts as having leadership 7 while in range of the soulless ability, thus why I have bolded "unit" every time I used it in this post. The unit has a different leadership value now because of soulless, but RoB changes the way they take tests to let them use a different unit's leadership as an alternative.

Like my car analogy, or Sourclam's bank account analogy, it doesn't matter what soulless does to your stuff, since you're using someone else's stuff instead.

Sha1emade wrote:What you say might be true sourclams but what eight ball and Jeff Armstrong have said should not so easily be brushed off. It is the closest to a "official" answer we have so far. We can all hold out for the FAQ but that answer might be a glimpse of what we could see.

It's not going to get an FAQ because it doesn't need one; the rules are actually pretty explicitly clear on this. I understand where the grey area lies, but let's face it, if GW isn't going to errata DA storm shields to be 3+ invuln, they're not going to clarify this issue either.

As to the Jeff Armstrong officiality issue, there's only one guy who answers customer rules questions in a remotely official capacity, and that's John Spencer. Now, added to that, even John Spencer is largely ignored by the 40k playing community (including by Nurglitch on his ruling on Gate of Infinity and models locked in assault), because even though he may be the "voice" of GW, insofar as there is one, his answers are not easily replicable or referrable (official FAQ document).

For that reason, YMDC resorts to a very literal and narrow reading of the rules, looking for exactly what is offered in the rules. That's why I personally try to shoot down individual interpretation and asserted rules-writing-in because although reasonable, they are not the rules. Everyone can play the game however they want, but they come to YMDC to see what's "correct", not what is "right".

So that's the counter to the "reasonable interpretation" argument, for the literal argument all you have to do is read Piraterobotninjaofdeath's response, because as far as I'm concerned he's got it.

Well if it was so clear Sourclams then this thread would not have gone on so long with VASTLY differing opinions. So it is not as "explicitly clear" as you might suggest. Both sides have clear and convincing arguments. In the end we will all play this rule as we see fit. We would all like to see the magic FAQ that I agree we will not see. However others might take what Jeff said as close to a GW response as possible. Given how much is done by committee with GW and how hard it is to do a FAQ for them, getting any answer is better then no answer. So I'm just saying I agree that Jeff's response is not a end of discussion answer till it is put into a FAQ we will never see. But it should be treated with a bit more respect than you have showed it.

Just saying...

I say you talk to the guy you are playing. One of two things I can see are acceptable.

1. Units within 12" are LD 7.

2. If you believe that you can USE his leadership then if the Pariahs are within 12" of the Master then his leadership is 7 and that is the number that can be shared.

What I think.
I think that you sub the Masters LD for yours so even if you take his 10 it still gets knocked down to 7.

OK guys here is the exact same instance in fantasy.. the rules are the exact same just with a different stat. Thsi is directly from the Vampire Counts FaQ

Q. If a friendly undead unit is targeted by an enemy spell or ability which modifies
the Weapon Skill of the unit (e.g. the Lore of Light Spell, Blinding Light) and a
Vampire Lord wearing the Helm of Commandment wishes to pass his Weapon Skill onto
the unit, which takes precedence? Is the unit's Weapon Skill considered to be 7
and then modified per the spell or ability, or will they use the Vampire Lord's
Weapon Skill in such an instance?

A. They will use the Lord's WS of 7. We recommend casting the spell on the
Lord instead!
S. Official Vampire Counts FAQ

You have to modify the RoB guy's Ld to affect the other unit's Ld. Since they are no longer using thier own Ld it doesnt matter what you do to their Ld stat. All that matters is they have the ability to use the RoB guy's LD (ie you havent turned that ability off or blocked it) and that the RoB guy isnt getting affected by something that lowers his LD. It is very simple.

I just don't buy a fantasy FAQ to solve a rare case in 40k. As the games are very different. The wording on the rules is very different. The impact on the game is different. The fluff behind why they work that ways if different. The time between codex and editions is different.

I appreciate the attempt to bring in new information and new ways to look at the rule but the differences are too vast IMHO. Even if it had ruled the other way I would still have to dismiss it as relevant. It could be used as a REFERENCE to what GW might do if it were to get a FAQ. So in that aspect relevant. But not so much as a answer to this question. (See above for reasons.)

Just saying....

Sha1emade wrote:So I'm just saying I agree that Jeff's response is not a end of discussion answer till it is put into a FAQ we will never see. But it should be treated with a bit more respect than you have showed it.

Just saying...

I absolutely agree that's the way things should be, but the only rules guy at GW is John Spencer, and even his "rulings" are largely ignored. In the end it'll always come down to how you and your friends play it, but this won't be FAQed and the individual quoted is, I'm guessing, a sales liaison and not in any way attached to the official rules writers. Even though he "is GW", it's not in the capacity you're hoping for. It's like the architect of the hospital giving you a medical diagnosis.

If you think the rules and wording in this isntance is different then I highly suggest you reread both rule books and codecies. In this case there is NO difference except one deals with WS and the other deals with LD. One is a magic item and one is an ability.. in essence the same thing when it comes to rules completion.
Also who the hell cares about the "fluff" behind anything.. that has never affected how the rules actually work. Please cite anything that matters to support your anti-arguement other than "its the way I want it to happen."

Thanks.

You can't not use rules from one game and put them in another. It can help clear some things up but it doesn't help in this case.

The Necrons modify your leadership when you are within 12 inches. So you take the Leaders LD score. It still gets taken down to 7.

The models are scary. This isn't Dr. Drew telling you it's only in your head. They have sharp claws and they are wearing human skin. Fear them.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath:

The rules say that using a Leadership value is having a Leadership value. I've already pointed that out a few times already. To whit:

The Leadership Tests rule says:
"If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value."

So what is a unit's Leadership value? The Leadership value that it uses for Leadership tests.

The Morale Checks rule says:
"Morale checks (also called Morale tests) are taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leadership value."

What gets used in a Morale check? The unit's Leadership value.

You thiking of flayed ones mauled?
I dont see a difference in the games or rules in this instance. You can modify a units WS in fantasy also..
Again stop trying to bring fluff into a rules discussion.

Soulless doesn't modify a unit's Leadership.

First

Please don't call me mauleed. mauleed is a guy that rode on Yakfaces coattail. I have no idea where he is now. You can call me MLY.

Second

I'm not using fluff. I'm simply saying that the rules is written that you have to use LD 7. So no matter what you say your LD is it's still 7. The rule here overrides RofB. It says you use LD 7. It doesn't say you have the option to use it.

I could care less about this rule. I don't use RofB or Pariahs. I however do care about people trying to abuse rules to their advantage.

Point 1
You got an IC that you hide in a squad that is not easy to kill.

Point 2
I have a unit that you can fire at all day.

Point 3
You let me get close to you and my rule says you have to use LD 7.

"Suck it up and be a man or woman" I'm trying not to be sexest.

( I did confuse the P's with flayed ones though. )

To Canaan

First Canaan you could attempt to not make this a personal attack and keep it civil and leave emotions at the door. Second many people read the rule as I have not just as you say "its the way I want it to happen." You asked me to cite anything that matters to support my anti-argument. Well given that you cited another game system entirely I shall do the same. In the rules for Candyland it says....

Actually GW rules SEEM to be written in a way that makes sense and from a FLUFFY perspective. As GW has always TRIED to use fluff as a explanation for how things work. Granted for game purposes sometimes they have to be ignored. Generally for balance issues. Why should fluff be COMPLETELY ignored in this case. It hardly unbalances the game and goes with the spirit of the game. You often have to look at a rule from the perspective of how it was meant to work. This can help cut threw some of the ambiguous wording. As both camps are locked on the RAW of the rule the next logical step is to look at what is it supposed to do. Or look at it from a Fluffy standpoint. I know how I read the rule and how you do. So my view BEYOND THE RAW is that this is not how it was meant to be played. DA magic walkie talkie makes the squad braver then if the guy talking to them was actually their. Makes no sense. Using common sense can help us to see how a rule was meant to be played. Given how we are split on this rule not only how it SHOULD work but also HOW it works.

As for the fantasy reference. How can you say their are NO differences and then put forth a laundry list of how they ARE different. You just shot down your own argument. Its like saying baking a cake is exactly like building a car except for the metal and the tools and the you can't eat as car and... This discussion is about differing interpretations of a few words. Introducing another game system and whole new verbiage on a vaguely smiler item hardly helps the discussion. As we are talking about one or two words in 2 codex's thats the meat of this debate. Those two words if changed would make it pretty clear and we would not be having this discussion in the first place. As they haven't changed the debate continues.

To sourclams

You do make a good point and I agree with you. However some people just want an answer so they can move on. This is their out so to speak. As I am sure some will use the obscure fantasy reference for an out. Both are probably not the best justification but at least it is something. I have no doubt we will both keep up the good fight till something surfaces to solve the problem. We both agree HOW it should work. We disagree on what the rules say. So it is worth the discussion as the 2 camps are not yet agreed.

Nurglitch wrote:

The Leadership Tests rule says:
"If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Ld value."

This whole argument you're having hinges on the unit including the model whose leadership they are using. And when the Captain isn't part of the unit? Then this qualifier is thrown out on its ear.

mauleed wrote:The models are scary.

And Dark Angels are fearless [in the fluff] as well as sharing a near-hatred for the Witch that stems from their Primarch's own prejudice. Fluff goes both ways, the rules are really clear.

Nurglitch, your assertion that HAVING = USING when refering to Ld is false. You may USE the stat you HAVE, but sometimes you can USE the stat someone else HAS.

I think you need to clarify why you make the assumption that using a stat with a value X means you replace the stat's original value with value X.

All the rest aside..
What does it matter that that unit's Ld gets changed to Ld 7 when they arent even using their own Ld? They are using Mr. RoB.

Who is Mr. RoB. I know that isn't in any rulebook.

So you are using RoB. The rule says you have a LD of 7.

Now you're deliberately over-simplifying. A correct reading would be:

The unit counts as leadership 7.

The unit may use the leadership of the Captain.

The unit counts as leadership 7 is now irrelevant, because they do not use their own leadership.

Until you can show that the rule is written in a way that gives the unit a specific leadership value, you're stuck bouncing your 7's off of Captain RoB's Wall of 10.

So if the Unit is 12 inches from the captain does he share his 10 or the 7?

You can't have it both ways.

So you say you are using the Captains leadership and then I say my unit makes it 7. How is that wrong?

If the Captain was within 12" of the Pariahs, then it'd be 7. I don't think a single person is disputing that. If this is the premise you were operating on, then I can certainly understand your opposition to RoB functioning as written.