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.

The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
That is not what I am Literally saying.
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.

If there is a comparison of Leadership values then the HQ without it cannot be a part of the comparison. You must satisfy both requirements, 1. Can he be a Warlord? 2. If there are other HQs present does he have the highest leadership?

NULL is never greater than 0 or any other integer.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

Yes^3.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

Yes^3.

Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):

Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

Yes^3.

Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):

Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.

No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Sorry, I can hold off on my argument until you work things out with Kel.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

Yes^3.

Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):

Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.

No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.

That is incorrect, you are still comparing Ld values in the second sentence as it is discussing an HQ character with a higher Leadership

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

Yes^3.

Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):

Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.

No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.

That is incorrect, you are still comparing Ld values in the second sentence as it is discussing an HQ character with a higher Leadership

Sure - you're comparing LD values.
The first sentence requires a LD value to exist (since no HQ choice can be higher).
The second does not (since any value can be the highest).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.

Yes^3.

Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):

Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.

No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.

That is incorrect, you are still comparing Ld values in the second sentence as it is discussing an HQ character with a higher Leadership

Sure - you're comparing LD values.
The first sentence requires a LD value to exist (since no HQ choice can be higher).
The second does not (since any value can be the highest).

Since we are comparing Ld values, we are using Math(specifically less than, Greater than) correct?

The Tank Commander has Ld of '-' in the profile. P.3 of the rulebook tells us this is same as '0'. If the Tank Commander is the only HQ character present, this would make him the warlord, even if the specific rule allowing to be chosen would not exist. Therefore for that rule to have any purpose it must mean he can be chosen regardless of the result of the Ld comparison.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Since we are comparing Ld values, we are using Math(specifically less than, Greater than) correct?

Yes.

Crimson - that can't be a valid argument as the T and W are also - (or 0) which means bad things.

rigeld2 wrote:

Crimson - that can't be a valid argument as the T and W are also - (or 0) which means bad things.

No it doesn't. They're not 'reduced to 0', the're 0.

In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Crimson - that can't be a valid argument as the T and W are also - (or 0) which means bad things.

No it doesn't. They're not 'reduced to 0', the're 0.

In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*

It's almost like there's a rule that allows that to not happen.
Maybe it would be called "Tank Commander" or something similar.

What is the definition for 0 in math?

Nothing, the null set, lack of a value.

Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is the definition for 0 in math?

Nothing, the null set, lack of a value.

Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.

Incorrect.

Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is the definition for 0 in math?

Nothing, the null set, lack of a value.

Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.

Incorrect.

Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

This is correct in Math. But the BrB says that LD - is the same as 0 for the game. So doesn't that make this particular debate pointless?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*

It's almost like there's a rule that allows that to not happen.
Maybe it would be called "Tank Commander" or something similar.

No, with your interpretation that would happen. If the TC is not exempt from the Ld comparison and undefined does not equal to zero, the the game 'crashes' once you have the Tank Commander and, say, Lord Commissar as your HQs and try to compare their leaderships.

But this doesn't even matter. By the rules the TC has LD of 0, and is a HQ character; thus he can de a warlord, even without a special rule telling us that he can. So for that rule to have any purpose, it must mean something else.

Zimko wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is the definition for 0 in math?

Nothing, the null set, lack of a value.

Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.

Incorrect.

Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

This is correct in Math.

Which, as underlined, is what I was responding to.

But the BrB says that LD - is the same as 0 for the game. So doesn't that make this particular debate pointless?

No. It'd be great if you followed the thread instead of assuming you understand why the discussion is where it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*

It's almost like there's a rule that allows that to not happen.
Maybe it would be called "Tank Commander" or something similar.

No, with your interpretation that would happen. If the TC is not exempt from the Ld comparison and undefined does not equal to zero, the the game 'crashes' once you have the Tank Commander and, say, Lord Commissar as your HQs and try to compare their leaderships.

No. As explained. I'm not going to bother repeating it because you can click on filter thread and figure it out.

But this doesn't even matter. By the rules the TC has LD of 0, and is a HQ character; thus he can de a warlord, even without a special rule telling us that he can. So for that rule to have any purpose, it must mean something else.

The people arguing against me have refused to accept that the profile applies. It'd be great if you'd read the thread and follow the discussion instead of making assumptions.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zimko wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is the definition for 0 in math?

Nothing, the null set, lack of a value.

Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.

Incorrect.

Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

This is correct in Math.

Which, as underlined, is what I was responding to.

But the BrB says that LD - is the same as 0 for the game. So doesn't that make this particular debate pointless?

No. It'd be great if you followed the thread instead of assuming you understand why the discussion is where it is.

Sure, you and Kell are debating over whether you can compare Ld values with multiple HQ choices if one of the HQ choices has a - for it's LD. Crimson is saying this is irrelevant because the BRB states that Ld - is the same as Ld 0 and the profile for TC as I understand it has LD -. Therefore the rule in question would serve no purpose if it did not negate the need to compare LD with other HQ choices.

I figured this is the best place to ask this, please feel free to refer me to a prior post/thread if there is one. I am at work and cant read through 7 pages of rule discussions.

I havent played guard before(played against them though), but as a read the codex something confused me about the infantry platoons.

So the minimum you can take is 1 platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads. Can you make them all join each other as 1 squad with 25 bodies? or is the 2 infantry squds able to be combined but the platoon command as to run around as a 5 man unit?

It seemed clear that COMPANY command squads could not join other squads, but i was getting confused on the troops.

Thanks!

Zimko wrote:
Sure, you and Kell are debating over whether you can compare Ld values with multiple HQ choices if one of the HQ choices has a - for it's LD.

No, we're not.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/589768.page#6726287
Kel refuses to apply that profile to the TC.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
What is the definition for 0 in math?

Nothing, the null set, lack of a value.

Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.

Incorrect.

Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.

You are correct Null Set was the incorrect term.

Null Set is a measure of negligible Importance.
I meant to say the Empty Set, which is a part of the Null set; If one has No oranges they have an empty set of oranges, which is expressed as having 0 Oranges.

0 in Mathematical comparison is a lack of value, The non-existence of a thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

Zimko wrote:
Sure, you and Kell are debating over whether you can compare Ld values with multiple HQ choices if one of the HQ choices has a - for it's LD.

No, we're not.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/589768.page#6726287
Kel refuses to apply that profile to the TC.

I'm sorry, I don't have the new book and someone earlier in the thread said the TC had a LD - on their profile. If they don't have LD on the profile then that is different since you can't compare them during the 'compare LD phase' of picking a warlord. That would be why this rule exists.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I meant to say the Empty Set, which is a part of the Null set;

Null set was once a common synonym for "empty set", but is now a technical term in measure theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set)
Again, no. Null Set and Empty Set are two different things.

And while you're still trying to make 0 and <null> (or undefined, or lack of existence) to equate. They aren't the same.

0 in Mathematical comparison is a lack of value, The non-existence of a thing.

False. 0 is a position on a number line.
The lack of existence of a thing is a lack of a number line.

They have a profile, they have Ld '-' and they're a HQ character. This already makes them eligible to be a warlord. For the special rule to have a purpose, it must refer to skipping the Ld comparison part. To me this is the clearest and cleanest interpretation of these rules, as it doesn't require one to believe that GW included non-functional rules or profiles just to confuse the players.

(Rigeld, I've read the thread and I don't agree with Kel on the applicability of the profile. The profile is there on purpose.)

Ok... to recap, you choose a warlord from a pool of models that are HQ choices, Characters, and have the highest LD.

A model without a LD does not have the highest LD and therefore is not in the pool of possible warlords to choose from.

So if you have 2 HQ characters, 1 with LD 9 and the other with LD 10 then your pool of eligible warlords has only 1 model in it.

This special rule adds him to the eligible models to be chosen as a warlord.

So if you have a TC and another HQ character with LD 10, you can choose from either of them because the special rule makes the TC eligible for being chosen as a warlord.

Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.

 Rezyn wrote:
I figured this is the best place to ask this, please feel free to refer me to a prior post/thread if there is one. I am at work and cant read through 7 pages of rule discussions.

I havent played guard before(played against them though), but as a read the codex something confused me about the infantry platoons.

So the minimum you can take is 1 platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads. Can you make them all join each other as 1 squad with 25 bodies? or is the 2 infantry squds able to be combined but the platoon command as to run around as a 5 man unit?

It seemed clear that COMPANY command squads could not join other squads, but i was getting confused on the troops.

Thanks!

Since people are still arguing about Tank Commanders as Warlords, to answer your questions, only units that have the 'Combined Squads' special rule can blob up.

 Crimson wrote:
Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.

In this case it is a moot point because the rule seems to skip the LD comparison altogether. An HQ that doesn't have the highest leadership can't normally be chosen as a warlord... this rule says the TC can be chosen as a warlord so his LD doesn't matter.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I meant to say the Empty Set, which is a part of the Null set;

Null set was once a common synonym for "empty set", but is now a technical term in measure theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set)
Again, no. Null Set and Empty Set are two different things.

And while you're still trying to make 0 and <null> (or undefined, or lack of existence) to equate. They aren't the same.

0 in Mathematical comparison is a lack of value, The non-existence of a thing.

False. 0 is a position on a number line.
The lack of existence of a thing is a lack of a number line.

Empty set is a part of Null Set, They are separate but related.

We will go back to your Basket of Oranges; If you have a Basket, and in that basket you have a small, insignificant piece of orange Peel you technically have an orange in your basket, but not enough to matter, You have a Null Set of oranges(no actual oranges, just a piece that does not count). If you lack even that tiny piece of peel you have an Empty Set, you have no oranges at all.

0 is a position on a number line and an integer between positive and negative, for calculation math. But we are not calculating anything here, we are not asked to find the difference between Ld values.

We are using Comparison math, where we simply determine who has more Ld in value; A lack of value equates to 0 for this purpose. 1 is greater than non-existence would you agree to this statement?