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.

 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.

 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

It's in the FAQ:

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.

 Neorealist wrote:

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.

No I follow your logic, it is simply flawed in this case. I reference these things because, even though you do not point to them specifically, your logic falls directly in line with other facets of the game that exist. Your proposed method of rolling to-wound per model is exactly how precision strikes/shots work, if they wanted templates to have that ability then they would have said so. Your logic leads to the circumvention of standard wound allocation, which again if they wanted templates to work that way they would have spelled it out clearly (similar to how they do with other rules, such as focused witchfire or precision strike/shot).

Ok, so if we're quoting template rules then I will quote one for you on page 6 - In Bold: "A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template."

Anyway, as you've already mentioned earlier, going by your proposed method you don't know how to handle other situations where an ability wounds against leadership. So I stand by the majority leadership method as it breaks no rules and every situation in which something wounds against leadership will work properly.

Well to be fair - it breaks the majority toughness rule, by changing ti to use Leadership instead. it is, however, a MUCH clearer break than making up an entirely new method that has no precedence whatsoever in the ruleset, and only works with one class of weapon making it useless as a general replacement

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Well to be fair - it breaks the majority toughness rule, by changing ti to use Leadership instead. it is, however, a MUCH clearer break than making up an entirely new method that has no precedence whatsoever in the ruleset, and only works with one class of weapon making it useless as a general replacement

Not really breaking it though if it's a function of the ability/weapon. But I suppose I see what you're saying.

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

That is literally what it says in the majority toughness rule, yes. You'll note i do not claim that makes any logical sense, just that it follows the rules as written.

Neo - will you finally concede that you have made up that the template rules alter the Target rules?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neo - will you finally concede that you have made up that the template rules alter the Target rules?

You are wasting your time. My arguments stem from the rules, and at no point did i break any of them with my interpretation. I am concerned that you believe you have something to prove here, but i'm not going to humour your insistent requests.

 Neorealist wrote:
You are wasting your time. My arguments stem from the rules, and at no point did i break any of them with my interpretation. I am concerned that you believe you have something to prove here, but i'm not going to humour your insistent requests.

Except for the fact that you're not using the RAW when you try to roll against individual models when the actual rules require you to roll against the unit as a whole.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neo - will you finally concede that you have made up that the template rules alter the Target rules?

You are wasting your time. My arguments stem from the rules, and at no point did i break any of them with my interpretation. I am concerned that you believe you have something to prove here, but i'm not going to humour your insistent requests.

Apart from where you break the rules, by rolling to wound against not the target, but a subset of the target. Which has absolutely no backing anywhere, otherwise you may have managed to find an actual rule b y now, rather than blustering around the point.

You broke the rules by trying to change the target with absolutely no permission.

You are required to roll to wound against the entire unit. Prove otherwiise, or concede you got it wrong.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Neo - will you finally concede that you have made up that the template rules alter the Target rules?

You are wasting your time. My arguments stem from the rules, and at no point did i break any of them with my interpretation. I am concerned that you believe you have something to prove here, but i'm not going to humour your insistent requests.

Maybe I'm missing it, can you give me a page and paragraph that explicitly stats that only models under the template are the target, and not the unit as a whole?

Happyjew wrote: Maybe I'm missing it, can you give me a page and paragraph that explicitly stats that only models under the template are the target, and not the unit as a whole?

Such a rule does not exist, and i have not being saying that those specific models are being targetted by the attack like some confused yet impressively persistent people have been claiming.

The only thing I have been saying is that the hits are assigned to the models found under the template. (again, not that those models are specifically targetted. I cannot stress this enough)

The rule that backs up my claim is found on page 52, in the template USR section, specifically the phrase: "...Any models fully or partially under the template are hit..."

 Neorealist wrote:

Happyjew wrote: Maybe I'm missing it, can you give me a page and paragraph that explicitly stats that only models under the template are the target, and not the unit as a whole?

Such a rule does not exist, and i have not being saying that those specific models are being targetted by the attack like some confused yet impressively persistent people have been claiming.

The only thing I have been saying is that the hits are assigned to the models found under the template. (again, not that those models are specifically targetted. I cannot stress this enough)

The rule that backs up my claim is found on page 52, in the template USR section, specifically the phrase: "...Any models fully or partially under the template are hit..."

And the Roll to Wound section explicitly states that you roll vs the target. You've asserted that this allows you to only roll against the models that were hit. Please make that connection using rules.

this line: To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart.

1) models under a template explicitly 'are hit' by it.
2) The 'Roll to Wound' rule tells us how to resolve 'a hit'.
3) The rest of the rules that are relevent to the shooting attack.

I'm getting very tired of repeating this...

 Neorealist wrote:
this line: To determine whether a hit causes a telling amount of damage, compare the weapon's Strength characteristic with the target's Toughness characteristic using the To Wound chart.

1) models under a template explicitly 'are hit' by it.
2) The 'Roll to Wound' rule tells us how to resolve 'a hit'.
3) The rest of the rules that are relevent to the shooting attack.

I'm getting very tired of repeating this...

I highlighted what you appear to be missing.

I'm not missing it, i'm just working within the context that 'the target' refers to whatever it was that took the hit.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not missing it, i'm just working within the context that 'the target' refers to whatever it was that took the hit.

Yet earlier you said this:

 Neorealist wrote:
i have not being saying that those specific models are being targetted

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not missing it, i'm just working within the context that 'the target' refers to whatever it was that took the hit.

And ignoring the fact that the shooting rules define "target" as the unit as a whole.
You can use whatever rules you want to make up, but please don't pretend they are RAW.