Morale and RoB

[Wrath Angel]

Hello all. I have been playing 5th Edition for a few months now and thought I had a decent understanding of the rules, but I still constantly run into situations that are not so clear cut. Recently, I ran into a situation with Rites of Battle. The way I read RAW, it looks like if you lose CC, you take a penalty to your Ld, then take the morale test (p. 44 BRB). However, using Rites of Battle uses the commander's leadership instead of the unit's when making a morale test. The way I read RAW is that with RoB you would never have a modified check, unless the commander's leadership was somehow modified.

 

This seems way overpowered, so I don't think it is RAI, however RAW definitely makes a case for never having to take a modified morale check in CC. Has anyone else come across this issue? Any thought, strictly from a RAW context that disputes this?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Legatus]

Using an Officiers Leadership Value due to a Special rule such as the Imperial Guard "Leadership" rule or the Space Marines "Rites of Battle" rule is not much different from using the highest Leadership value of that unit for the test.

 

A Unit of Space Marines (Ld 8) uses their own Leadership value of 8. A unit of Space Marines with a Veteran Sergeant (Ld 9) uses his Leadership Value of 9. A unit of Space Marines led by a Captain (Ld 10) uses his Leadership value of 10. A unit in an army that has a Captain with 'Rites of Battle' on the table uses his Leadership value of 10.

[Wrath Angel]

I see what you are saying, however, it is this line of the BRB that is causing issues (p.44):

 

"UNITS (emphasis mine) taking this morale check suffer a -1 Ld modifier for each wound their side has lost by."

 

This seems to imply that the unit suffers a penalty to Their Ld, but this would in no way affect the use of RoB which uses the Captain's Ld instead (which has not been modified).

 

I only brought this up because of a similar thread I saw dealing with RoB and Necron Pariah's Soulless power. It seemed as if the majority consensus there was that the soulless power did not affect the Ld of the Commander unless he was also in range of the power. I am simply saying that RAW would indicate that unless the Captain with RoB had his leadership modified somehow, all units would always test at Ld 10, even if they lost combat by -4, -5 etc. It would appear based on the above line that these penalties would not apply when using RoB.

 

I would also like to point out that RoB as it is written in the DA codex does not say that the unit replaces their leadership with that of the Captain, rather that they use his Ld, implying that they keep their stat line.

[Steelmage99]

RoB does not say "unmodified Leadership", like Book of Lucius does.

[Wrath Angel]

right, I got that. I think maybe I am misunderstanding or you guys are misunderstanding me. If the Captain with RoB is not involved in the CC; he is simply on the table, and I choose to use his Ld for a squad that lost combat by 3: The way I've been playing is that the squad would normally test at 6 (ld 9 from a Vet SGT -3), however, with RoB the squad now tests at 7 (Ld 10 from CPT - 3). I am pretty sure that is what you are advocating.

 

The problem came when I let a friend of mine use my Dark Angels and fought against him with Tau. Using RAW, he claimed that RoB would not be modified and thus he would test at Ld 10 even if he lost by 3: I.e. squad would normally test at Ld 6 as above, however with RoB the squad still has a modified Ld of 6, but chooses to use the Ld of the CPT instead, which is 10. I can't find any wording in the BRB or in Codex DA that I can use to argue against this logic. With RAW this seems to be correct.

[GTang]

Basically, it's because the Book of St. Lucius exists that this reasoning doesn't fly. There is wargear that does say unmodified, so wargear that does not must not be so.

[Wrath Angel]

I would say that A: This is not wargear. B: the commander's Ld as it stands at the time of the check is 10, so, the unmodified bit does not lend anything to the argument.

 

If the commander was under an effect that modified his Ld, then that would be the Ld that would be used. Where as with the Book of Lucius (sic), the original Ld of 10 would still stand. The thing here is that the Ld of the CPT is not being modified, only the Ld of the unit in CC.

 

 

Edit: I hope I am not coming across as argumentative, that is not my intent. I really appreciate all of the input. I just don't think it counters RAW.

[bystrom]

Is the wording in the DA codex the same as in the 4th ed. SM codex? If so, it says that the unit can take a Morale Check with the Captain's Ld instead of their own. On pg. 44 it says that the unit taking the Morale check suffer from Ld modifier.

 

So what it says is that the unit takes a Morale check. While it can use another's Ld, it still takes modifiers as the Unit is taking a Morale check, not the Captain (as the unit taking the Morale check suffer modifiers). So unless the Captain is taking the Morale check for the unit, as opposed to the unit taking the Morale check, but using the Captain's Ld, the unit will suffer modifiers.

[Wrath Angel]

Is the wording in the DA codex the same as in the 4th ed. SM codex? If so, it says that the unit can take a Morale Check with the Captain's Ld instead of their own. On pg. 44 it says that the unit taking the Morale check suffer from Ld modifier.

 

So what it says is that the unit takes a Morale check. While it can use another's Ld, it still takes modifiers as the Unit is taking a Morale check, not the Captain (as the unit taking the Morale check suffer modifiers). So unless the Captain is taking the Morale check for the unit, as opposed to the unit taking the Morale check, but using the Captain's Ld, the unit will suffer modifiers.

 

 

It is not worded the same. It does not include the wording "instead of their own." It says on p.36 of the DA Codex:

 

"If the Company Master is on the table then all other Dark Angel units may use his Leadership for Morale..."

 

Are we saying that the "instead of their own" is implied? If so, could you point me to other examples where this precedent has been set?

[bystrom]

If it says units can use the Company Master's Ld, then they can use his Ld, but in accordance with pg. 44 in the BBB, the actual Morale check brings along modifiers:

 

1) Unit A has to take a Morale check.

2) Unit A uses the Company Master's Ld.

3) Unit A takes modifiers because unit A is taking a Morale check.

 

Units taking this Morale Check suffer a -1 Ld modifier for each wound their side has lost the combat by.

[Wrath Angel]

Thank you all for the help. I think as it stands I am going to have to home rule this one to match consensus. I agree with your rationale bystrom, but my opponent does not. In his perception it would go like this:

 

1) Unit A has to take a morale check

2) Unit A takes modifiers because they are taking the Morale check

3) Unit A chooses to use the Master's Ld instead

 

In his thinking the modifiers apply before the decision to use RoB. I don't see anything to counter his thinking other than opinion as to when certain actions occur. I welcome any other ideas or use of RAW to contradict this stance, but alas I don't think this is as easy an argument to solve as it is not black and white as I was hoping.

[Legatus]

"UNITS (emphasis mine) taking this morale check suffer a -1 Ld modifier for each wound their side has lost by."

 

This seems to imply that the unit suffers a penalty to Their Ld, but this would in no way affect the use of RoB which uses the Captain's Ld instead (which has not been modified).

First you should know that the Morale rules on page 43 establish in the first paragraph under 'Morale Checks' that a test is taken by rolling 2D6 and comparing the total to the unit's Leadership value. This is in the beginning of the Morale rules, and that is what all the other rule description sfollow up on.

 

On the same page (43) 'Morale Check Modifiers' are described thusly:

 

"Certain circumstances can make Morale checks harder for a unit to pass. This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to the Morale checks, which can reduce the unit's Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

 

The "checks are harder to pass" and "Leadership modifiers are applied to Morale checks". In effect the rules then say that there is a penalty on the units Leadership value. They still assume that this is what the unit will test on. It would for the specific case in this thread have been better is the rules would say that the penalty is applied to the Leadership value the unit is using. But unfortunately they don't, since the basic rules assume that the test is taken on the Leadership value of the unit.

 

Alternatively it would have been better if the rules for 'Rites of Battle' would have said that any unit can use the Captains Leadership value instead of their own. That would have made it more clear that they are merley substituting their own value for that of the Captain, which is then still subject to the morale test modifiers. But I guess perhaps even then some people would come along and say that it is "their" leadership value that gets modified by the Morale test, not the value they are using.

[rat of vengence]

My fast answer would be that nowhere does it say using the Commanders leadership is unmodified. Fluff wise, they benefit from his experience on the battlefield, but still take into account they just got kicked. Ruleswise, like has been said, there is nothing that says this test, regardless of whose leadership you use, is unmodified. If the Commander was taking the test, then no mod. But he isn't, the squad is, they're just using his leadership. Since the squad is using his leadership, but has a modifier to the roll... ^_^

 

RoV

[Wrath Angel]

"Certain circumstances can make Morale checks harder for a unit to pass. This is represented by applying Leadership modifiers to the Morale checks, which can reduce the unit's Leadership value by -1, -2 or sometimes even more."

 

 

Actually, I think that this might be what I'm looking for. This states that the Ld modifiers are applied to the check, not to the unit, unlike page 44.

[Legatus]

Yes, it starts off by saying that the test becomes harder and modificators are applied to the check. Unfortunately it then goes on to say that the unit's Leadership value is reduced. The basic rules only take the situation that was established in th ebeginning into account, that they take the test on their own Leadership value, so the rules don't differentiate any further and simply apply the modifiers to the "units Leadership value". I think the lazyness of the writer is to blame here, but unfortunately that's what it currently says. I have no doubt, though, that if the rules had considered the possibility that the unit would take the test on someone else's Leadership value, not on their own, the rules would say that "the Leadership value they are testing on" is reduced by the modifiers.

 

 

 

You mentioned the Necron ability earlier. In that case it is quite a different situation. The Necron Pariah rule does not force a Leadership test at all. As long as the Pariahs are within range of a unit, that unit has a Leadership of 7. The Pariah could stand there the whole game, but if the unit is not required to take a morale test during that time, they will not really be affected by it at all. But if the unit should be forced to make a test during that time, it would not be on their usual Leadership value of 9 (example with SM with Veteran Sergeant), but because of the close Pariah it would be on a lowered value of 7. That value could then further be modified by the morale test they have to take.

In this case it is not a test that is taken at difficult modifiers. It is actually the unit's own Leadership that is affected by the Pariah.

[Steelmage99]

As "RAW" doesn't seem to work to well on this issue, I'm left with the only counter I find relevant in this case; gamebalance. Using the unmodified Leadership is IMO too gamebreaking in this case.

 

For the record; I play Dark Angels and Vanilla marines.