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.

Kevin949 wrote:It is not a leadership test. For reference, it is the Primaris power listed in BRB pg 423.

What I am getting at here is that the only way to resolve this is majority leadership, just like majority toughness.

The problem with that interpretation Kevin is there is no specific rule to suggest that you should do what you are saying. The power itself doesn't indicate that, nor does anything else i'm familiar with in 6th edition. There is literally no established rule that indicates the proper procedure to determine the leadership statistic of an entire unit, as opposed to the models in it.

And yes the necron abyssal staff should work exactly the same way. My argument does not address nor effect precision shots, so i'm going to continue that trend here.

 Neorealist wrote:
There is literally no established rule that indicates the proper procedure to determine the leadership statistic of an entire unit, as opposed to the models in it.

And rather than use the closest analog (majority Leadership) you'd rather make something up out of whole cloth when it's obvious based on another similar case (ID wounds) that they just want you to replace Toughness with Leadership.

That makes sense.

I resent that. I'm not making anything up, i've proposed following the wording of the 'Roll to Wound' section exactly multiple times.

 Neorealist wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:It is not a leadership test. For reference, it is the Primaris power listed in BRB pg 423.

What I am getting at here is that the only way to resolve this is majority leadership, just like majority toughness.

The problem with that interpretation Kevin is there is no specific rule to suggest that you should do what you are saying. The power itself doesn't indicate that, nor does anything else i'm familiar with in 6th edition. There is literally no established rule that indicates the proper procedure to determine the leadership statistic of an entire unit, as opposed to the models in it.

And yes the necron abyssal staff should work exactly the same way. My argument does not address nor effect precision shots, so i'm going to continue that trend here.

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.

It's a case of path of least resistance, and that least resistance is substituting "Leadership" for "Toughness" in all instances of resolving the attack, breaking/bending no rules.

Also I was not saying that your argument addressed precision shots, I'm saying that your argument allowed these weapons to be BETTER than precision shots...weapons that by all rights are never allowed to pick out models individually.

 Neorealist wrote:
I resent that. I'm not making anything up, i've proposed following the wording of the 'Roll to Wound' section exactly multiple times.

You can resent it but doing that requires you to make up rules.
As I've said, your process requires rolling to wound against the Targets toughness/leadership.
Keeping in mind that the Target is the Unit and not individual models, what is the target's leadership?

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.

Your target cannot be a subset of models in the unit. It must be the unit in its entirety as the shooting rules require.

rigeld2 wrote:You can resent it but doing that requires you to make up rules.

indeed. It was your personal opinion on my comments rather than factual information and therefore unwarranted. stick to the facts, if you will.

rigeld2 wrote:As I've said, your process requires rolling to wound against the Targets toughness/leadership.
Keeping in mind that the Target is the Unit and not individual models, what is the target's leadership?

Rolling against a target's toughness is quite obviously covered under the 'Roll to Wound' section. Wether or not that target represents the entire unit or specific portions of said unit is immaterial to how you go about rolling to wound.

Similarly replacing the requirement to roll against toughness with leadership does 'nothing' to change any other part of those rules, and therefore changes nothing regarding how you'd roll to wound other than the target you are rolling against. The Majority toughness rule is a second rule that you need to follow in sequence to the previous one, and one that does not apply if you are rolling against leadership.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You can resent it but doing that requires you to make up rules.

indeed. It was your personal opinion on my comments rather than factual information and therefore unwarranted. stick to the facts, if you will.

Actually it was factual.

rigeld2 wrote:As I've said, your process requires rolling to wound against the Targets toughness/leadership.
Keeping in mind that the Target is the Unit and not individual models, what is the target's leadership?

Rolling against a target's toughness is quite obviously covered under the 'Roll to Wound' section. Wether or not that target represents the entire unit or specific portions of said unit is immaterial to how you go about rolling to wound.

Similarly replacing the requirement to roll against toughness with leadership does 'nothing' to change any other part of those rules, and therefore changes nothing regarding how you'd roll to wound other than the target you are rolling against. The Majority toughness rule is a second rule that you need to follow in sequence to the previous one, and one that does not apply if you are rolling against leadership.

I'm lost now.

How does the Roll to Wound process allow you to wound models again? That was your statement that started this disagreement.

I'm lost now. How does the Roll to Wound process allow you to wound models again? That was your statement that started this disagreement.

*sigh*

Normal:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the toughness stat of the target. If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely)

Shredder:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the leadership stat of the target. Since we are not checking the toughness of the target, ignore the next line: If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely):

Does that help to outline my thought processes here?

Right - and what is the Leadership of the target, remembering that your target is not individual models?

The leaderships of the models recieving the hits.

 Neorealist wrote:
The leaderships of the models recieving the hits.

How is that the target's leadership? Why are you "targeting" individual models instead of the unit as a whole when you had to target the unit as a whole to fire the weapon in the first place?

I'm not 'targetting' anything other than the unit as a whole. I'm simply rolling against the leadership of the models which have taken the hits as i do not have a 'majority toughness' rule analogue that says differently.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm not 'targetting' anything other than the unit as a whole. I'm simply rolling against the leadership of the models which have taken the hits as i do not have a 'majority toughness' rule analogue that says differently.

But the roll to wound process requires (as in, uses the word) that you roll against the target's Toughness/Leadership.
You are absolutely not targeting the individual models, you're targeting the unit as a whole. Therefore you are required to use the Leadership of the unit as a whole and absolutely not individual models.

the models the unit is comprised of are 'the target' including those that took the hits. That said, i've said this to you before. Given how circular this argument has gotten, i'm going to presume i've said my case and say no more on this.

 Neorealist wrote:
the models the unit is comprised of are 'the target' including those that took the hits. That said, i've said this to you before. Given how circular this argument has gotten, i'm going to presume i've said my case and say no more on this.

No, "the target" is the unit as a whole and can only ever be the unit as a whole.
Or are you going to find some rule allowing you to target specific models?

Neo's position has nothing to do with targeting. He claims that using the Majority Toughness rule on weapons that wound against leadership is incorrect per RAW, and that individual models under a template should use their individual leadership to determine hits only, as there is no corresponding Majority Leadership rule in the wounding process.

More directly, he asks why should Leadership be substituted into Majority Toughness, rather than having the rule be dropped altogether from the process, since it doesn't apply.

Then, assuming Majority Toughness is dropped, he posits that the only way to determine the unit's leadership is on a model by model basis.

RAI I agree that it should hit on majority lead. RAW I don't really find any reason to completely refute this explicitly, although I feel that there is no basis for determining unit leadership model by model. In the absence of a rule for determining a single value for the unit's leadership, the weapon doesn't function.

The rules for shooting attacks describe only one target, and that is the target unit. It is only logical to calculate the target's LD just like you would calculate the target's T. I don't think creating a whole new process just for these weapons is what the FAQ intended.

 Neorealist wrote:
the models the unit is comprised of are 'the target' including those that took the hits. That said, i've said this to you before. Given how circular this argument has gotten, i'm going to presume i've said my case and say no more on this.

Yet you are not resolving the wound against the TARGET, you have stated so!

You are resolving the wound against a SUBSET of the target unit; specifically you are applying it against the models hit, which for all but trivial cases is not the whole unit.

So, again - where do you have permission to select only a SUBSET of the target when rolling to wound? Page and paragraph, noting that NOTHIGN in rolling to wound allows you to do this, so you must provide a citation elsewhere

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Selicate wrote:
Neo's position has nothing to do with targeting. He claims that using the Majority Toughness rule on weapons that wound against leadership is incorrect per RAW, and that individual models under a template should use their individual leadership to determine hits only, as there is no corresponding Majority Leadership rule in the wounding process.

More directly, he asks why should Leadership be substituted into Majority Toughness, rather than having the rule be dropped altogether from the process, since it doesn't apply.

Then, assuming Majority Toughness is dropped, he posits that the only way to determine the unit's leadership is on a model by model basis.

RAI I agree that it should hit on majority lead. RAW I don't really find any reason to completely refute this explicitly, although I feel that there is no basis for determining unit leadership model by model. In the absence of a rule for determining a single value for the unit's leadership, the weapon doesn't function.

I understand his point. I'm saying that it is illegal to go on a model by model basis as you are required to roll against the units leadership.
He's made up this "model by model" basis out of nothing and has no rules support for it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

Selicate wrote:

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

Please read the rest of the thread.

Selicate wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

You have 2 choices.
A) The target has no Leadership score and therefore cannot be wounded. We know this is true because you must use the target's characteristic to roll against, and the target is absolutely the unit as a whole, not individual models.
B) You use Majority Leadership just like you use Leadership instead of Toughness for ID checks.

One of those options makes the weapon useless. The other is an obvious follow from prior rulings.

Selicate wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have ducked this point since your first postings on this, but the only logical way to compelte this gap is to use majority leadership to replace majority toughness, rather than making up an entirely different process for an analogous situation.

Do you have a compelling RAW reason for why the Majority Toughness rule should apply?

RAW you have no method to wound a unit based on the units Leadership, as you have no ability to find the leadership of the target. NEos "method" has no rules basis whatsoever, as it relies on perverting the phrase "target" which means "unit" into allowing you to pick out a subset of the unit to roll against; this has absolutely no rules backing anywhere and additionally has no comparable usage in another situation. It is an entirely made up method which only "works" because the weapon uses a flamer - if it were a normal roll-to-hit weapon you would have absolutely no ability to determine the models you have arbitrarily decided you must roll to-wound against. This inconsistency of application is another clue as to why it is a poor argument.

So RAW the weapon is unable to wound. THis is slightly unreasonable, so you instead determine the Targets, meaning UNIT as a whole and NOT a subset, leadership value using Majority Toughness - method instead. Given that you are told to essentially substitute "leadership" for "toughness" anyway, this is the most analogous situation - you havent been forced to create an entirely new method to wound the unit, unlike Neo

Neo - please explain how you have gone from *unit* entire to *unit* subset-of and your rules allowance to do so. Page and paragraph. Failure to do so means you will have conceded the argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

RAW you have no method to wound a unit based on the units Leadership, as you have no ability to find the leadership of the target. NEos "method" has no rules basis whatsoever, as it relies on perverting the phrase "target" which means "unit" into allowing you to pick out a subset of the unit to roll against; this has absolutely no rules backing anywhere and additionally has no comparable usage in another situation. It is an entirely made up method which only "works" because the weapon uses a flamer - if it were a normal roll-to-hit weapon you would have absolutely no ability to determine the models you have arbitrarily decided you must roll to-wound against. This inconsistency of application is another clue as to why it is a poor argument.

I already agree with this as previously mentioned, I'm not advocating Neo's method.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So RAW the weapon is unable to wound. THis is slightly unreasonable, so you instead determine the Targets, meaning UNIT as a whole and NOT a subset, leadership value using Majority Toughness - method instead. Given that you are told to essentially substitute "leadership" for "toughness" anyway, this is the most analogous situation - you havent been forced to create an entirely new method to wound the unit, unlike Neo

I wanted to see if by strict RAW the weapon doesn't function properly, and it looks like that is agreed. Majority lead seems RAI.

Well, Rules-as-we-assume-they-wanted-them-to-actually-have-any-effect

Majority Ld is the only reasonable way to do this, for the weapon to have any actual use in the game.

 Neorealist wrote:

I'm lost now. How does the Roll to Wound process allow you to wound models again? That was your statement that started this disagreement.

*sigh*

Normal:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the toughness stat of the target. If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely)

Shredder:
Step 1:
Place template, covering as many models as possible in the target unit. Each of the models under the template recieve a hit.
Step 2:
Resolve the hits against the unit. For each model recieving a hit: compare the strength stat of the attack against the leadership stat of the target. Since we are not checking the toughness of the target, ignore the next line: If the target has different toughness models in it, resolve against the majority toughness.
Step 3:
Profit (and the rest of the 'Roll to Wound' section which i agree with completely):

Does that help to outline my thought processes here?

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.

my reasoning follows

majority toughness is not changed to majority leadership
majority toughness rule still applies if lord toughness differs from unit since the unit does trigger the majority toughness rules.
toughness check replaced by leadership.(what leadership?)

I don't understand how you justified "Since we are not checking the toughness of the target, ignore the next line" Nothing in any of the text stops this applying as far as I can see.

Needless to say I would play this as majority leadership.

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.

Yes, which is why instead of making up an entirely new method, that only works on templates, how about using what they have been hinting at, repeatedly: treat Ld as toughness.

Additionally the template rules say no such thing - they do not override the rules requiring you to target an entire unit