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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?

Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?

If a basket of oranges is mandatory for the competition, how could you even be in the competition?

The Tank Commander has a special rule saying he may be chosen for the warlord. I believe that this inherently overrides the leadership requirement, as he does not have the lowest leadership. He simply does not have a leadership at all.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?

Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?

By no one else showing up.

In an election whoever receive the most votes wins, but if you run unopposed no voting is necessary you win because you are the only one who meets the requirements(running)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Lamo wrote:
Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison

Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.

When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).

The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.

So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld

That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?

Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?

By no one else showing up.

In an election whoever receive the most votes wins, but if you run unopposed no voting is necessary you win because you are the only one who meets the requirements(running)

Right, I get that the Tank Commander can be the warlord in absence of anyone else. I don't think anyone is arguing that.

What I think is that the rule is rather pointless, because 9/10 times you'll have an HQ infantry model, whether it's a Company Command Squad, Lord Commissar, Ministorum Priest, Regular Commissar, Primaris Psyker, or Techpriest Enginseer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Lamo wrote:
Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison

Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.

When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).

The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.

So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld

That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.

No, it means they're incomparable.

Ask any logic engine anywhere whether or not 9 is a higher value than <UNDEFINED> and you won't get an answer. I guarantee it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Lamo wrote:
Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison

Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.

When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).

The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.

So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld

That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.

Did you read what I said?

I am not sure what you are saying I am incorrect about.

Let me break down my post:

If the Tank Commander is your only primary detachment HQ Character, he is your warlord by default without the rule telling you he can be your warlord. Do you disagree with this?

For the rule to have any function or purpose, it must mean that a second eligible HQ Character, that is not a tank commander, does not prevent you from selecting the Tank Commander as your warlord.
Is this what you disagree with?

Please explain to me which one you disagree with and how I am wrong in these assertions.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the Tank Commander is your only primary detachment HQ Character, he is your warlord by default without the rule telling you he can be your warlord. Do you disagree with this?

Yes. He is an HQ character but has no Leadership value, and therefore cannot have the highest Leadership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.

No, it means they're incomparable.

Ask any logic engine anywhere whether or not 9 is a higher value than <UNDEFINED> and you won't get an answer. I guarantee it.

And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.

And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.

Why must we have an answer? The Tank Commander-as-Warlord cannot be illegal because he has special dispensation permitting him to become the Warlord.

And your analogy doesn't work, because the Tank Commander cannot even compete in the competition. He is logically incapable of doing so.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why must we have an answer?

Because the rules require it.

And your analogy doesn't work, because the Tank Commander cannot even compete in the competition. He is logically incapable of doing so.

That's the point. He's incapable of competing so cannot win.
You won $5 in the lottery. I didn't play. Who won more money in the lottery?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why must we have an answer?

Because the rules require it.

They do, aside from an exemption in the Tank Commander's rules. Taking that exception into account, no, they don't.

rigeld2 wrote:

And your analogy doesn't work, because the Tank Commander cannot even compete in the competition. He is logically incapable of doing so.

That's the point. He's incapable of competing so cannot win.
You won $5 in the lottery. I didn't play. Who won more money in the lottery?

He also cannot lose. Why does inability to compete means that he automatically loses?

As for your example, I would have won more money in the lottery. But if you have a special rule saying that you may be considered the winner, then the actual numbers are quite irrelevant - you've won.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why must we have an answer?

Because the rules require it.

They do, aside from an exemption in the Tank Commander's rules. Taking that exception into account, no, they don't.

The TC rule does not have an exception. It has an allowance to be chosen as a warlord, but that does not exempt him from the LD comparison.

He also cannot lose. Why does inability to compete means that he automatically loses?

Lemme ask all the people who don't compete in the Oympics about their gold medals...

As for your example, I would have won more money in the lottery. But if you have a special rule saying that you may be considered the winner, then the actual numbers are quite irrelevant - you've won.

Is that what TC says? So it's been misquoted every single time and it actually does address what happens in the LD comparison?

rigeld2 wrote:
[
And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.

Or you accept that because it is impossible to compare them, that you use the Codex rule giving him permission to be the Warlord.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.

Or you accept that because it is impossible to compare them, that you use the Codex rule giving him permission to be the Warlord.

People are really overstating what the Codex rule gives permission to do.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why must we have an answer?

Because the rules require it.

They do, aside from an exemption in the Tank Commander's rules. Taking that exception into account, no, they don't.

The TC rule does not have an exception. It has an allowance to be chosen as a warlord, but that does not exempt him from the LD comparison.

Except that not having a leadership means it cannot be compared, so normally he would not be able to be the Warlord. However, he can - but that doesn't suddenly mean that the leaderships can be compared.

rigeld2 wrote:

He also cannot lose. Why does inability to compete means that he automatically loses?

Lemme ask all the people who don't compete in the Oympics about their gold medals...

How about you look for their names in the list of people who have lost at the Olympics as well? That's just as valid as asking them to show their gold medal.

rigeld2 wrote:

As for your example, I would have won more money in the lottery. But if you have a special rule saying that you may be considered the winner, then the actual numbers are quite irrelevant - you've won.

Is that what TC says? So it's been misquoted every single time and it actually does address what happens in the LD comparison?

No. But you cannot logically compare the leadership values. Which normally would prevent the TC from being able to be a warlord. However, he can be. This does not suddenly make 9 or 10 comparable with <UNDEFINED> in any logical system.

No the rules require the Ld to be the highest among HQ Characters, being the same grammatically as all other eligible HQ characters having a lower Ld value.

If you have no other eligible HQ characters, you have no eligible HQ characters with a higher Ld.

A null set or no value is mathematically equivalent to 0; That is exactly what the number 0 means and represents: Null value or "the empty set"; that said I would push for a reading of the rules that an HQ character drawn from the Primary detachment, that is not specifically denied from being the warlord and has a Ld value of -/0 will be considered a "higher" Ld than the tank Commander who has no Ld characteristic because having a characteristic, even the same mathematically is inherently higher than not having a characteristic. Unit1126pll this goes for you too, you are comparing a misunderstanding of wqhat 0 means to programming language in an incorrect way, Binary is Off/On, or There/not there represented by 1s as there/on, and 0s as off/not there.

Your assumption is that an HQ Character has to have a Ld Characteristic in order to have "the highest Ld", but the lack of any other HQ Characters means that a model that is an HQ Character that does not have an Ld characteristic is the highest Ld HQ Character in the Army.

Can Bjorn the fellhanded be a Warlord when you are running a pure SW army with only Bjorn as an HQ? If so, Why? it is not in an FAQ. If not who/what is your armies mandatory Warlord? How?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
A null set or no value is mathematically equivalent to 0;

Honestly I could not parse the rest of your post, but as for this part, Rigeld has explicitly claimed that he does not believe that TC's have a Leadership Stat of 0.

rigeld2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.

Or you accept that because it is impossible to compare them, that you use the Codex rule giving him permission to be the Warlord.

People are really overstating what the Codex rule gives permission to do.

Not really. You yourself said your comparing apples to oranges. You have two entirely different things that your forcing into a comparison that you really cannot. There are no contingencies on the wording like "is eligible to be your warlord" or "can be your warlord if you do not have a Character with a LD value." Its simple plain writing that everyone is reading too much into.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
A null set or no value is mathematically equivalent to 0;

Honestly I could not parse the rest of your post, but as for this part, Rigeld has explicitly claimed that he does not believe that TC's have a Leadership Stat of 0.

They really do not(I said as much in page 1 or 2 and convinced Rigeld of it); that was what the rest of that section was about, As far as Leadership values/the rules go, they have none. As far as Math and Greater than/less than goes, no value equates to 0

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
A null set or no value is mathematically equivalent to 0;

Honestly I could not parse the rest of your post, but as for this part, Rigeld has explicitly claimed that he does not believe that TC's have a Leadership Stat of 0.

They really do not(I said as much in page 1 or 2 and convinced Rigeld of it); that was what the rest of that section was about, As far as Leadership values/the rules go, they have none. As far as Math and Greater than/less than goes, no value equates to 0

Wait so (9/0) < 9 is a mathematically correct statement after all?

No, because you cannot divide by 0; 9/0 is the issue in the equation.

Cannot divide by zero does not give you an answer of nothing or an empty set, it gives you the "unknowable equation" you were presenting earlier. Imaginary numbers are screwy in dealing with simpler math, which is why we have higher math, and then things that just don't work.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that not having a leadership means it cannot be compared, so normally he would not be able to be the Warlord. However, he can - but that doesn't suddenly mean that the leaderships can be compared.

Normally he can't, rule says he can.
Find the rule allowing him to ignore all comparison.

How about you look for their names in the list of people who have lost at the Olympics as well? That's just as valid as asking them to show their gold medal.

The rule doesn't ask for losers. It asks for winners.

No. But you cannot logically compare the leadership values. Which normally would prevent the TC from being able to be a warlord. However, he can be. This does not suddenly make 9 or 10 comparable with <UNDEFINED> in any logical system.

I've shown how it works. It doesn't work in a world of 1s and 0s programatically, but it can work in plain english.

Not for nothing, but imaginary numbers have nothing to do with dividing by zero.

Dividing by zero is impossible (or, philiosphically, results in an answer of "infininte")

Imaginary numbers are quite possible.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that not having a leadership means it cannot be compared, so normally he would not be able to be the Warlord. However, he can - but that doesn't suddenly mean that the leaderships can be compared.

Normally he can't, rule says he can..

Yes, he can.

I have shown it to you time and again.

No Ld does not matter when there is no other HQ Characters. No Ld is, by default the highest Ld(of "non-existant") when there are no other candidates and you must have a warlord.

Ld is not actually a requirement, the requirement is that no other HQ Characters have a higher Ld, No other HQ Characters means, no other HQ Characters have a higher Ld, Meaning your lack of Ld is the Highest Ld among the single HQ Character you have.

Oh, and Polonius; Thank you for correcting my misapplication of Imaginary Number I just could not remember what the term for impossible calculations is(I am fairly certain there is a specific term, I just cannot remember it).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No Ld does not matter when there is no other HQ Characters. No Ld is, by default the highest Ld(of "non-existant") when there are no other candidates and you must have a warlord.

So it can be compared when he's the solo HQ, but not when he's not?
I'm confused. You're literally saying that. He must have the highest Leadership. He does not have a Leadership value. And yet you're asserting that's enough to have the highest Leadership?

That is not what I am Literally saying.

What I am Literally saying is that it is compared in both cases.

Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

This is what I have maintained for the last several pages.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.

Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.

Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.

It isn't a Ld value. Please demonstrate that any value is higher than <null>.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.

Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.

I had already shown how "Highest Ld" is the same grammatically as "No-one with a higher Ld".

No Ld at all is the highest among no other applicants, something else I have shown.

But I am going to go back to your Oranges in a basket example to show it to you in your own terms:

You said: "Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?"

The contest has nothing to do with the basket, it has everything to do with the number of Oranges. If no one else shows up to the contest, you and you lack of either basket or oranges still win by virtue of being the only contestant.

As soon as you add another contestant that has a basket, and any number of oranges in that basket, they have more oranges in a basket then you and therefore you then lose the contest(having neither basket, nor oranges therein).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.

Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.

It isn't a Ld value. Please demonstrate that any value is higher than <null>.

For his argument, it must be a LD value. Because the Warlord must have the highest LD value. If you don't have one, how can you have the highest?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.

Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.

It isn't a Ld value. Please demonstrate that any value is higher than <null>.

For his argument, it must be a LD value. Because the Warlord must have the highest LD value. If you don't have one, how can you have the highest?

Except that you have permission to be the Warlord, and are therefore exempt from requiring a Leadership stat.

There are three criteria for being a warlord:

1) HQ choice - the TC is this definitely
2) A character - the TC is also this, definitely
3) The highest leadership - the TC has no leadership

Which one do you think the rule specifically allowing him to be a warlord is addressing?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.

Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.

Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.

I had already shown how "Highest Ld" is the same grammatically as "No-one with a higher Ld".

No Ld at all is the highest among no other applicants, something else I have shown.

No, it's not. It's a lack of LD. How can you have the highest of something you don't have?

You said: "Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?"

The contest has nothing to do with the basket, it has everything to do with the number of Oranges. If no one else shows up to the contest, you and you lack of either basket or oranges still win by virtue of being the only contestant.

False. The rules required a basket of Oranges. You cannot enter the contest without that basket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Except that you have permission to be the Warlord, and are therefore exempt from requiring a Leadership stat.

There are three criteria for being a warlord:

1) HQ choice - the TC is this definitely
2) A character - the TC is also this, definitely
3) The highest leadership - the TC has no leadership

Which one do you think the rule specifically allowing him to be a warlord is addressing?

#3. But that's not Kel's argument. Kel's argument is that the rule isn't required if he's the only HQ model.
It'd be nice if you read and responded in context - there's two of you with different arguments.