Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:13 pm
by Chubs
I'm going to more than a little sad if I see more than one counsel member's team contain 4 or more of these units.

All 3 ft Chicagoans aside, having an influence on Rules Changes for the tournament should really not play those armies on principal.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:33 pm
by Turtle
i don't know what the big deal is here you guys all read what yakface wrote, it spells it out pretty clearly. and it is not a modifier, it is a reduction in leadership.

Also thinking that something is ruled a certain way just so a council member can play with it is one of the most insulting things i've ever heard (and i'm not even involved with it) None of them make rulings based on what armies they want to play in a tournament. That's just ridiculous.

There are plenty of times in this game where 2 reasonable people can both look at something and come to 2 very different very reasonable conclusions. There has to be a clear decision one way or another for a tournament, especially one as big as adepticon. In these cases if they ruled the other way there'd be another set of people complaining about how they ruled it the other way and how ridiculous it is.

All the council people do is try to come up with the best possible solution, and frankly I am sick of all the complaining over the work that they do to try and make tournaments fair for everybody. How would you all feel if during a tournament something (not necessisarily this issue) was ruled on differently by different judges? hmm? wouldn't you feel cheated?

So how about a little gratitude for the work they put in so that everyone can have a fair game, and a little less whining about it.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:49 pm
by n00bzilla99
Turtle wrote:i don't know what the big deal is here you guys all read what yakface wrote, it spells it out pretty clearly. and it is not a modifier, it is a reduction in leadership.


Please tell me in english how a reduction =/= a modifier. I'm fairly certain a reduction is a negative modifier.

Turtle wrote:So how about a little gratitude for the work they put in so that everyone can have a fair game, and a little less whining about it.


I am extremely grateful for the INAT FAQ, I use it in our gaming group, I however do not like this particular ruling.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:07 pm
by Turtle
english is full of things like this so here you go the words may be similiar but are very different. if they were exactly the same then there wouldn't be two different words

modify
–verb (used with object)

to change somewhat the form or qualities of; alter partially; amend: to modify a contract.


reduce
–verb (used with object)
1.
to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number, etc.: to reduce one's weight by 10 pounds.
2.
to lower in degree, intensity, etc.: to reduce the speed of a car.


as you can plainly see a reduction is not a modifier

and if you believe it to be the same thing then you also have to start calling all rectangles "squares"

if you are confused about it please go back to yakface and read slowly and carefully as it is explained very well there. and if you still don't get it please repeat until you understand

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:32 pm
by n00bzilla99
I will not "understand" Yakface's ruling because I think it's wrong.

I have the right to voice my opinion and mine is that reduction is a subset of a modifier. Modify means to change. A reduction is a change, albeit a negative one. I can ask anyone in America if reducing something is akin to modifying it, the answer I would get? Yes, over and over again.

Turtle wrote:and if you believe it to be the same thing then you also have to start calling all rectangles "squares"


No, because all squares are rectangles, and not the other way around, this is a common known math fact. Squares are a special (hence part of) SUBSET of rectangles, a rectangle is an object with 4 sides and 4 ninety degree angles, all squares must be rectangles because a square is a special case of rectangle not the other way around.

Also, I have read Yakface's post numerous times, and yet each time, I wonder how the council jumped to such conclusions. Then I remember that this was probably heavily debated, and finally a ruling like this prevailed.

This power is a modifier because the power does not state in the guard codex, your leadership now count as X. It states that your leadership is now it's base minus X. And morale check modifiers are defined as "certain circumstances that can make morale checks harder for a unit to pass, this is represented by applying leadership to modifiers to morale checks, which can reduce the leadership by 1, 2 or sometimes even more."

How on earth is the psyker battle squad not modifying by reducing the leadership of a unit. To me it's clearly defined and covered in the rulebook as a modifier.

I have of course a question for you, how (in the real world) can you reduce something without modifying it? Give me a real life example of reducing something (an object) without somehow changing it.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:39 pm
by Depayen
AdeptusBrewCityJoe meet Moonshadow13 you two love to debating rules and being words smiths. Both get on the rules committee next year and you guys can debate these issues till the cows come home. As for me I have a headache.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:46 pm
by Chubs
Disrespect? No, just my opinion. The inat is clearly the best written tournament rules clarification.
Any other thought you may have from my post is not the original intent.

I was just giving a few folks a hard time. Most players will anticipate lash... Psb... Deffrolla... We grow as a community if everything is in the open before the tournament .

Abc, I with you, but I'll be playing with the ruling in mind.


... Now how quick can I paint up a death wing army....

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:58 pm
by n00bzilla99
Depayen wrote:AdeptusBrewCityJoe meet Moonshadow13 you two love to debating rules and being words smiths. Both get on the rules committee next year and you guys can debate these issues till the cows come home. As for me I have a headache.


We've met. Thanks. :P Also, If I had the time to commit to the rules committee, trust me, I'd be all over an offer like that to be on it.

Chubs wrote:Abc, I with you, but I'll be playing with the ruling in mind.


Chubs, while I do not agree with the ruling, my teammates and I will abide by it while at AdeptiCon because the INAT's word is law there.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a ruling however.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:41 am
by yakface
The commentary provided by Joe is exactly the sort of thing that is GOOD for the INAT FAQ.

He disagrees with some rulings and makes a reasoned case on why he thinks the ruling is wrong. Absolutely nothing wrong with that and in fact that type of constructive criticism is extremely helpful to us.


Joe, all I can say on the matter is that I pretty much agree with you. Like any ruling in the INAT FAQ that generates a fair number of detractors, it isn't some sort of slam dunk ruling that everyone involved agrees on.

I know on Dakka people are even making fun of me a bit because everytime someone brings up an unpopular ruling I make a post saying that I was outvoted in that particular situation (ignoring all the times I simply defend a ruling without saying anything because that's clearly one I was onboard with).

But its true, in that this vote almost certainly (IIRC) was a split vote (i.e. 5-4), and I think if you were to gather any 9 reasonable gamers together with varying opinions on the rules and present all the facts for this particular ruling you'd probably get the vote 5-4 one way or the other. Do it again with 9 different gamers and you'd probably get another 5-4 vote although perhaps in the other direction.

Personally, I think the best course of action is probably to go with the more liberal interpretation of what a modifier is, but the argument I presented to you before was my best attempt to paraphrase what those members who did vote for it believe the rules indicate and I can certainly understand their viewpoint:

There does genuinely seem to be a difference in the game between modifiers and things that simply 'reduce' Ld. Deathleaper is another example of a model that has a rule which reduces Ld (of course in that case he reduces a MODEL's Ld as opposed to a unit's). Again, in this case Stubborn would not help against this reduction if that model was taking a Morale test, as this is not strictly a 'modifier'.

Now, I know exactly what you're thinking...but if Weaken Resolve reduces the unit's Leadership, then again, if they are using the Ld from a different source (such as Rites of Battle) then this would not be affected by Weaken Resolve.

But again, I'll point you back to the fact that a morale test is taken against a UNIT's Ld value, the rulebook section on Morale checks actually uses this term ('unit's Leadership value')...but again, there is no such thing as a Leadership value for a unit. Units do not have a leadership characteristic.

Now NORMALLY in order to find a unit's leadership value you take the highest leadership characteristic from a model in the unit and this is now the unit's Leadership value to take the Morale check with.

All that Rites of Battle says is that units may use the [character's] Leadership for Morale and Pinning tests. It DOES NOT say anything like 'The [character's] Ld value is used instead of the unit's Ld value for Morale tests'. Because if it did, you would be correct.

However it doesn't. You just get to use the character's Ld value, which means that when it comes time to take the Morale test you still have to find the UNIT's Ld value to take the test against, but with Rites of Battle instead of finding the highest Ld characteristic in the unit you are able to use the characteristic of the Character that has Rites of Battle.

But this value is still now the UNIT's Ld value, because this is what the Morale check is taken against...the UNIT's Ld value, which (in this case) is derived from the Character's Ld characteristic that has the Rites of Battle rule.

But 'Weaken Resolve' continually lowers the UNIT's Ld value...this is key. If this rule said all the MODELS in the unit have their Ld reduced then we'd be in total agreement. But it doesn't, it says that the UNIT's Ld is reduced and that means even after the UNIT's Ld value is derived from the Character with Rites of Battle it is still reduced by Weaken Resolve.


Ultimately I do think the argument is essentially consistent...but like any hot button topic we constantly look at feedback and consider whether we should revise the ruling in a future update and this one will certainly be one to consider as long as a good number of people feel it is wrong.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:23 am
by muwhe
I know on Dakka people are even making fun of me a bit because everytime someone brings up an unpopular ruling I make a post saying that I was outvoted in that particular situation (ignoring all the times I simply defend a ruling without saying anything because that's clearly one I was onboard with).

Just add one more to the list of reasons to make fun! :D

It is always those handful of questions that create the most debate while 95% of the rest of the document taken for granted. Most people would be tickled pink with a 95.

We all end up on the short end of some of these votes.... Jon included.

The fact is I'm guessing that most of us .. disagree with as many if not more individual rulings than some of the most vocal detractors :shock: but it is the overall purpose of the document that we all are in agreement.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:22 am
by n00bzilla99
Yakface. Thank you once again for the well thought out post.

I guess that we will have to disagree for now, and the best that I can hope for is that the ruling is revised in the future.

So, while I still disagree with the ruling, (even after reading your very well thought out posts!) I will abide by the ruling for AdeptiCon.

I would like to thank you for the time that you put into the INAT FAQ as well as the time you put it for AdeptiCon.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:53 pm
by Green Blow Fly
As noted the best counter is to run fearless units. It is not always easy to take out the PBS chimera.

G