Scout rules FAQ

[Mal]

Thank you Pingo, that was well put...

 

Ultimately I try to not look from my own opinions of the rules, I always try to follow RAW as strictly as possible... and as much as i'd like another weapon for my arsenal I don't feel that RAW allows for this one.

 

Perhaps it was meant to stack, but the wording just doesn't show it.

[greatcrusade08]

Perhaps it was meant to stack, but the wording just doesn't show it.

 

If it was that cut and dry we wouldnt be having this discussion now would we???

 

Both arguments can be made, but i look at it like this:

my argument:

LSS cerberus launchers states they reduce enemy leadership by 2, a second LSS has the same rule and therefore would also reduce leadership by 2.. as i said before values are fluid due to the numbers of modifers we have in the game (both positive and negative).. a number can be reduced twice!

i also stand by the argument that exemplars can be used to show other rules also stack.. its a rule of thumb.

 

your argument:

the wording seems to indicate that it can only be reduced by 2, beacuse it only says reduced not modified.

 

this argument is so flimsy, your aguing that a number cannot be reduced more than once, despite both LSS conferring a reduction onto the same squad.

 

RAW: the LSS reduces leadership by 2

the second LSS also reduces leadership by 2..

so thats a reduction of four... and thats RAW.

 

GC08

 

edit: this discussion is about assumptions, each LSS has its own cerberus launcher and therefore reduces Ld by 2, you are assuming without basis that it doesnt confer.. where is your proof?

in certain exemplar rules it tels you when the rule no longer stacks:

i.e 2ccws gives you +1A you cannot get any more than +1

stength modifiers.. they stck but their are limitations, i.e power fists doubling always goes first.

If this wasnt meant to stack it would say so

[Mal]

this argument is so flimsy, your aguing that a number cannot be reduced more than once, despite both LSS conferring a reduction onto the same squad.

 

RAW: the LSS reduces leadership by 2

the second LSS also reduces leadership by 2..

so thats a reduction of four... and thats RAW.

 

GC08

 

If your reducing the leadership by 4 then your not reducing it by 2 as the rule instructs you to do... just like the stealth rule, no matter how many times you have it it only takes effect once (and there is nothing saying you cannot have it more then once so it does correspond here).

 

Reducing a charastic is not the same as modifying one, yes its a very fine distinction, but many rules in the 5th ed BRB are like this, poorly written... we can only go on the wording not what we think its meant to say.

 

I say that 2 cerebus launchers would work independantly, you say they would stack...

If im right then the wording 'reduces leadership by 2' makes perfect sense...

If your right then it should say 'modifies leadership by -2'...

 

Now look at the rest of the modifier rules... and you'll see the wording 'modifies {charastic} by [x]', now since this rule is worded differently I don't believe that you can assume that one means the same as the other, if it did then why word it differently?

 

edit: this discussion is about assumptions, each LSS has its own cerberus launcher and therefore reduces Ld by 2, you are assuming without basis that it doesnt confer.. where is your proof?

in certain exemplar rules it tels you when the rule no longer stacks:

i.e 2ccws gives you +1A you cannot get any more than +1

stength modifiers.. they stck but their are limitations, i.e power fists doubling always goes first.

If this wasnt meant to stack it would say so

 

In each example here there are rules to specify the stacking and how it occurs, yet the cerebus rules have no such discintion... you ask me for proof.... I ask you for proof.... Neither can offer any aside from our own interpretation.

 

Yes my argument seems flimsy... its based entirely on the way the rule is worded... ohh wait.. thats RAW.

[greatcrusade08]

If your reducing the leadership by 4 then your not reducing it by 2 as the rule instructs you to do... just like the stealth rule, no matter how many times you have it it only takes effect once (and there is nothing saying you cannot have it more then once so it does correspond here).

 

this is where your argument falls down, your not reducing the leaderhip by 4, your reducing it by 2... twice! one for each LSS

the rule is for a single LSS and cerberus launcher not two, its like arguing only one LR can use POTMS to fire on the same target.

 

stealth only grants +1 cover save, there can be no arguing this point.

honestly i think you enjoy trying too much.

 

so theres no proof either way, this is my point, you have to use previous exemplars which has been my argument all along...

 

Yes my argument seems flimsy... its based entirely on the way the rule is worded... ohh wait.. thats RAW.

RAW = rules as written NOT rules as worded. or in your case RAM (rules as misenterpreted)

 

RAW = the cereberus launcher reduce Ld by 2

 

If you have two cerberus launchers they both reduce Ld by 2...

[Mal]

Ok firstly here... don't try to provoke me, we've been down this road before and it doesn't work remember...

 

You agree there is no proof either way, and I have shown previous exemplars within the wording of the rules, and shown the examples you gave to aid my cause as much as your own...

 

Now to this rather pitiful attempt to goad me... RAM eh?

 

No proof either way by your own admision, then who are you to say which interpretation it right and which it wrong.

 

The best you can do here is agree to disagree and impose the rule at the start of the BRB that states and contention in the interpretation of the rules shoud be diced for at the start of the game.

 

As a note, in future if neither argument has any proof outside of interpretation you may like to consider just how rude it is to tell others that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right... Just because we don't agree on this doesn't mean you can be rude and incivil.

[pingo]

Ok guys... I would hate for this to turn from a debate into an argument...

 

 

my argument:

LSS cerberus launchers states they reduce enemy leadership by 2, a second LSS has the same rule and therefore would also reduce leadership by 2

 

...

 

your argument:

the wording seems to indicate that it can only be reduced by 2, beacuse it only says reduced not modified.

 

No, not exactly.

 

The rule says '... any enemy units that the Scouts assault have their Leadership reduced by 2 ...'

 

This does not say 'LSS Cerberus launchers reduce enemy Leadership by 2': my interpretation is that it's subtly different than that. In other words, if assaulted, the enemy unit has a Leadership value that is reduced by 2. I acknowledge that this looks like exactly the same thing, but the way I see the RAW, if another LSS mounted squad assaults, the enemy unit already has a Leadership value that is reduced by 2.

 

I think the key here is how we interpret 'have their Leadership reduced by 2'. Now, if it said 'modified by -2', then that gives a sense that it can be cumulative. 'Reduced by 2' does not have that sense, at least to me.

 

I would still have the same interpretation if it said 'have their Leadership modified by 2'.

 

If you reduce the Leadership twice, then the unit's Leadership is reduced by 4, which contradicts the rule saying that they 'have their Leadership reduced by 2'.

 

The above is what Mal is saying.

 

 

If the rule was written as follows, it would be as you suggest:

 

'If the Scouts assault an enemy unit, then that enemy unit modifies their Leadership by -2'.

 

There is a difference between 'the unit modifies it's Leadership by -2' and 'the unit have their Leadership reduced by 2'. The first is kind of a directive as to what action to perform to the Leadership value. The second dictates what the value should ultimately be.

 

So if the RAW was 'the unit modifies it's Leadership by -2' then when the first LSS squad assaults, the enemy unit modifies it's leadership of, say, base 8, by -2, giving 6. When the second LSS squad assaults, again the enemy modifies it's Leadsership by -2, giving 4.

 

Taking the current RAW if 'the unit have their Leadership reduced by 2', when the first LSS squad assaults, the enemy unit have their Leadership of 8 reduced by 2, giving 6. When the second LSS squad assaults, then the enemy unit have had their Leadership reduced by 2 already.

 

For the RAW to work as you suggest, by 'Leadership' we must infer that this means not only the base characteristic but the base characteristic with any other increases or reductions. I cannot think off the top of my head of a precedent for that, but I am far from infallible.

 

It seems that when things are intended to stack, they are written as +1 Attack, or -2 Leadership, etc. The Cerberus launcher rule is not written like this. This could either be intentional, or a slip-up, but regardless, this is the RAW, and therefore we have to work with it until GW FAQ it for us.

[greatcrusade08]

If you reduce the Leadership twice, then the unit's Leadership is reduced by 4, which contradicts the rule saying that they 'have their Leadership reduced by 2'.

 

As i said your not reducing the leadership by 4, but two diffwerent units are implementing a reduction of 2, there is nothing in the rules to suggest a number cannot be reduced twice

 

It seems that when things are intended to stack, they are written as +1 Attack, or -2 Leadership, etc. The Cerberus launcher rule is not written like this. This could either be intentional, or a slip-up, but regardless, this is the RAW, and therefore we have to work with it until GW FAQ it for us.

 

I understand this argument but you cant argue GW doesnt word its rules very well as a way to counter my arguments and then use your interpretation of that same wording to argue your own point. It just isnt cricket!

My argument requires no assumption, each LSS reduces the leadership of its target unit by 2, if they target the same unit then they both implement a reduction, there is nothing in the rules to counter this.

 

And further more using your argument we could say that any other Ld modifiers dont count as they would contradict the rule that Ld cannot be reduced by more than 2.. doesnt make sense does it?

 

As a note, in future if neither argument has any proof outside of interpretation you may like to consider just how rude it is to tell others that their interpretation is wrong and yours is right... Just because we don't agree on this doesn't mean you can be rude and incivil.

I dont think you understand how a debate works, if i dont think im right i wouldnt argue as much, as for being rude... i think your overeacting

[pingo]

I think the problem we're having is that neither one of us is 'wrong', but nor are we completely right!

 

I think, GC08, that you may be right in your interpretation insofar as that is what GW probably intended. Unfortunately, at least to me, the wording of the rule seems to suggest the opposite. And since we only have the rule, we're kind of stuck with it.

 

I just feel that there is a small difference between 'reduces Leadership by 2' and 'have their Leadership reduced by 2'.

[Mal]

You know, I did have this long winded argument about the difference between RAW and RAI and its application to this debate... but to be honest I cba to 'discuss' with you anymore Gc08, I know you'll never truely listen to my reasoning with an open mind.

 

So to end this discussion I will envoke 'The Most Important Rule!' and leave it at that.

[greatcrusade08]

You know, I did have this long winded argument about the difference between RAW and RAI and its application to this debate... but to be honest I cba to 'discuss' with you anymore Gc08, I know you'll never truely listen to my reasoning with an open mind.

 

So to end this discussion I will envoke 'The Most Important Rule!' and leave it at that.

 

whos being rude now???

 

your argument is not RAW because you are interpreting whay 'reduces' can mean.. true RAW is the following:

scouts assaulting from an LSS reduces leadership by two.

What if two such units assault?

 

if your argument that the leadership couldnt be reduced further than two is right that means NO other leadership modifiers including winning combat by 6 would ever be taken into account.

Face it the wording may be different than normal but your argument is nonsensical when you add a little thought behind it.

 

The "most important rule" is a guide, it says decide between youselves, if you cant agree then roll a dice.

I have no problem telling you this: If my opponent was such a staunch rules lawyer that he would argue this, i dont want to play him!

 

rules lawyers are the reason i wrote this article and quite frankly arguing based on "implied wording" is rules lawyering at its worst.

 

heres an example.

LSS scout squad charges necrons and win combat by 3, whats the total leadership modifier? answer is 5.... 3 for combat res and 2 for cerberus launchers.

however if your argument was true the leadership cannot be reduced by more than two.. does that make sense?

[pingo]

your argument is not RAW because you are interpreting whay 'reduces' can mean.. true RAW is the following:

scouts assaulting from an LSS reduces leadership by two.

What if two such units assault?

 

if your argument that the leadership couldnt be reduced further than two is right that means NO other leadership modifiers including winning combat by 6 would ever be taken into account.

Face it the wording may be different than normal but your argument is nonsensical when you add a little thought behind it.

 

The "most important rule" is a guide, it says decide between youselves, if you cant agree then roll a dice.

I have no problem telling you this: If my opponent was such a staunch rules lawyer that he would argue this, i dont want to play him!

 

rules lawyers are the reason i wrote this article and quite frankly arguing based on "implied wording" is rules lawyering at its worst.

 

heres an example.

LSS scout squad charges necrons and win combat by 3, whats the total leadership modifier? answer is 5.... 3 for combat res and 2 for cerberus launchers.

however if your argument was true the leadership cannot be reduced by more than two.. does that make sense?

 

I'm not trying to be a rules-lawyer, personally. I just read the rule, thought that it wasn't clear, searched B&C for an answer, found this thread, saw there was no discussion on it, and thought I'd post about it. In a way, I'm sorry I did as it turned into a mini-brawl :(

 

I said at the beginning that I couldn't care less which interpretation won out, so long as one convinced me.

 

GC08, I think you are in all probability right. However, since the wording is unclear (else it wouldn't be a topic in this thread), I am arguing against you simply because if you can show me I am wrong, then that is good and the matter is cleared up. If I can't resolve my cognitive dissonance on the matter, then I will remain uncertain, and I wouldn't like that.

 

Equally if someone shows me my initial interpretation of the rule was probably correct, then I will be just as happy. Mal was doing well supporting this view as he picked up on the very same thing that had me confused, which showed that it wasn't just me who thought the same thing. I'm sorry you left the discussion, Mal, as you had some good points.

 

Anyway, the argument about existing leadership reductions stacking is probably the most convincing argument I've seen so far. I still am not totally convinced though, but more so for sure. However, this is a different type of modifier, so perhaps GW intended it not to stack. You could still have a maximum of -2 coming from the LSSs and everything else remaining the same. It does not have to preclude other modifiers. But I see what you mean.

 

Perhaps I will be unsure until GW FAQ it. I am open to arguments and interpretations though.

[Mal]

Don't worry Pingo, i'll happily discuss it further in PM if you wish, but having been in this situtation with my brother before...

 

The B&C has been the unfortunate witness to this in the past, and I made a promise to some of the mods that I would not perpretrate any such thing again, this is the reason why I will not continue the discussion with him.

 

Personally I don't feel the specific wording shows what he wants it to show... and his arguments have done nothing to disuade me from this... if the wording of a rule is not important then why the hell do we even have RAW?

[greatcrusade08]

Mals argument is the same one you put across, he made no attempt to show how his argument is valid other than to lay the burden on me.

He left the discussion because he has no point of argument other than "the wording sounds a little off" and then tried to claim it was RAW!

 

I ran it past the local redshirts today and they agreed one hundred percent with my assertions.

each land speeder storm has a cerberus launcher and therefore when a scout squad assaults from it they reduce leadership by two.

A second land speeder strom has exactly the same rule.

 

so LSS 1 reduces Ld by 2 then LSS 2 reduces Ld by 2 meaning a total reduction of 4.

Now i understand your argument where it says leadershp is reduced by 2, becuase we have a total reduction of 4.

The answer is that no single cerberus launcher has reduced Ld by more than 2, what we have is a cumultaive effect, whereas the cause stays the same (-2Ld from each).

 

You could still have a maximum of -2 coming from the LSSs and everything else remaining the same. It does not have to preclude other modifiers. But I see what you mean.

How can it not preclude other modifiers, if the assault causes a reduction of -2 only, how is it possible to reduce it further? answer its not and therefore the argument makes no sense.

 

On a further note the rule states it cause a reduction of 2.

it does not say 2 only, or 2 maximum or this does not stack.. without that we have to follow RAW which states each LSS confers a reduction of -2 Ld on the enemy unit.

the rules book shows that modifiers do stack, its a set precedant. what it also shows is that when limits are needed they are clearly shown.. there are no limits imposed with this rule.

 

so we have all these arguments vs "the wording makes it sound thus..." i know which id run by.

 

Pingo: theres a difference between questioning an uncertain rule and arguing against it.. the first is a normal gamer the second is a rules lawyer.

TBH if i encountered a grey area rule and someone showed eveidence to support thier arguments i would go along with it, playing games is more important.

[pingo]

I don't think I'm being clear in what I'm saying really.

 

Ok, I'll be a 'rules-lawyer' for a minute...

 

It doesn't say 'the Cerberus launchers cause a reduction of 2', it says the assaulted unit's leadership is reduced by 2. The way you put it would be much better in fact. The problem with the wording is that it opens up another potential interpretation.

 

To be honest, in a game I would probably stack the reduction. Particularly after this debate as it seems the likely intention behind the rule. And I don't care what's right, so long as something is right. However, I don't like doubt. The whole point of my posts was trying to remove my doubt, and it's certainly reduced but not removed. There is ambiguity in the wording of the rule. And you can't interpret a rule without recourse to it's wording.

 

To be honest, I'm a little insulted by being called a rules-lawyer in what seems to be a derogatory sense. That's not what I was doing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, nor am I trying to find loopholes in rules just to find loopholes. I genuinely did not know what the rule was saying. So I applied the wording literally and it seemed to me that the reduction could not stack. You can have all the arguments in the world, but if the rule seems (by some people's interpretation) to be saying something else, then the issue is not 100% resolved.

 

I feel it is possible (I'm not saying it is, just that it's possible) that when the person wrote the rule they meant that because of the Cerberus launchers (not the assault itself) the enemy units have a Leadership reduced by 2, regardless of how many Cerberus launchers there are, and then still be able to modify it further from another source (e.g. from the results of the subsequent assaults). That would mean the reduction from the Cerberus launchers is 2 and 2 only. Further reductions would be ok as it doesn't make a difference to the reduction the Cerberus launchers confer.

 

Anyway, in law the singular always infers the plural B) (joking: I'm not going that far ;) )

 

All I was trying to say is that on reading the rule, it is unclear. That's all. And I don't see the difference between arguing either side of an uncertain rule: either side can accuse the other of being a 'rules-lawyer'. If we didn't look to the rules and the wording of those rules for answers, we might as well make the game up as we go along.

 

The rule is worded poorly and ambiguously. We can surely agree that there is ambiguity?

[greatcrusade08]

I apologise if i inferred your a rules lawyer, that is not the case nor my intention. I have met my fair share of them and i wouldnt wish that on anyone.

 

We can also agree there is a degree of ambiguiety, it is a grey area rule after all and hence why it was added.

The object of this article is not to clear up grey area rules, that is impossible as everyone has a differing interpretation of wording.

the objective is to find the best argument that can be agreed on by most people, i think i have that in this case.

 

i ask you this, if the units Ld is reduced by two, why can it not be further reduced by two.. the two cerberus launchers are seperate entities and both have the same reducing effect.

Its like being charegd by two equal units and claiming the second unit doesnt get to attack.. i DO understand the argument but to me it sounds silly.

 

If green team attacks and reduces the enemy leadership by two and then the red team attacks and also reduces the Ld by two thats a reduction of four without a rule stating they do not stack.

Each cerberus launcher has reduced by two and has not broken its own rules.

 

this is the problem i dont think your conceptialising that the cerberus launchers are different entitites, they are obeying the rule that the Ld is reduced by two the difference being that two DIFFERENT cerberus launchers are both reducing Ld.. there is nothing to state this cant happen and the wording doesnt imply this cant happen either.

like i said previously there is no cap/limits written in and without an FAQ adding one in we have to use RAW which is each LSS can cause the enemies Ld to reduce by two.

 

normally i find middle ground, but the arguments are so one sided for me to even consider changing this, unfortunately some will always see ambiguiety and continue to argue regardless.

aslong as most can see the logic with my reasoning then i have achieved my goal with this article.

[pingo]

I apologise if i inferred your a rules lawyer, that is not the case nor my intention. I have met my fair share of them and i wouldnt wish that on anyone.

 

Accepted: the internet has a way of obscuring intention, I know.

 

We can also agree there is a degree of ambiguiety, it is a grey area rule after all and hence why it was added.

The object of this article is not to clear up grey area rules, that is impossible as everyone has a differing interpretation of wording.

the objective is to find the best argument that can be agreed on by most people, i think i have that in this case.

 

Indeed: this is important and we should see more of it on here.

 

i ask you this, if the units Ld is reduced by two, why can it not be further reduced by two.. the two cerberus launchers are seperate entities and both have the same reducing effect.

Its like being charegd by two equal units and claiming the second unit doesnt get to attack.. i DO understand the argument but to me it sounds silly.

 

You're assuming that the rule is saying 'a Cerberus launcher reduces enemy Leadership by 2'. But it is not written from the perspective of the launcher's effect, rather the experience of the unit being assaulted. It says "... any enemy units that the Scouts assault have their Leadership reduced by 2'. You could say it is saying that the enemy is stunned with means their Leadership is 2 less than normal. The enemy unit is the subject of the sentence, not the launcher, LSS, or the scouts.

 

Can you be more stunned than stunned?

 

If green team attacks and reduces the enemy leadership by two and then the red team attacks and also reduces the Ld by two thats a reduction of four without a rule stating they do not stack.

Each cerberus launcher has reduced by two and has not broken its own rules.

 

This assumes that your interpretation is correct, which is not established yet. This is just re-describing the problem.

 

this is the problem i dont think your conceptialising that the cerberus launchers are different entitites, they are obeying the rule that the Ld is reduced by two the difference being that two DIFFERENT cerberus launchers are both reducing Ld.. there is nothing to state this cant happen and the wording doesnt imply this cant happen either.

 

It also doesn't say it can happen either. Which is why we're debating this. That's the problem: it's ambiguous.

 

like i said previously there is no cap/limits written in and without an FAQ adding one in we have to use RAW which is each LSS can cause the enemies Ld to reduce by two.

 

There is also no stacking written in, and it is not necessarily implied. If it said '-2', then it's more explicit. You can have multiple 'minus 2s' modifying something.

 

normally i find middle ground, but the arguments are so one sided for me to even consider changing this, unfortunately some will always see ambiguiety and continue to argue regardless.

aslong as most can see the logic with my reasoning then i have achieved my goal with this article.

 

There is no middle ground to find, though. The arguments are not one-sided either. There is your side, which is good but not conclusive. You've not got over the fact that the rule states 'reduced by 2', which carries no necessary inference that it can stack and cannot be an absolute reduction. You are also assuming that 'reduction' means 'modify'. I'm not sure it does. It could be referring to the base characteristic being reduced by 2.

 

Things don't always stack. Take a power fist. It doubles the user's strength to a maximum of 10. So, does Calgar attack with strength of 10 as he has one fist with doubles his strength to 8, and another that doubles it again to 16, and therefore 10 (as that's the maximum)?

[Seahawk]

Things don't always stack. Take a power fist. It doubles the user's strength to a maximum of 10. So, does Calgar attack with strength of 10 as he has one fist with doubles his strength to 8, and another that doubles it again to 16, and therefore 10 (as that's the maximum)?

Bad example, as you can only use rules from one special weapon in close combat so it is moot; he only ever gets to S8 from the single fist.

[greatcrusade08]

As seahawk says above the rules for two doubling CC weapons are dealt with and limits clearly shown.

 

If a scout unit charges into combat on the same turn as it disembarks from the land speeder, any enemy units that the scouts assault have thier leadership reduced by 2 for the remainder of that assault phase

 

i think your putting too much emphasis on the fact it says enemy units... reduced by 2, we have to put the wording in context with the rest of the sentence:

what we have is a scout unit (singular) charging from a speeder (singular) and the target enemy units (plural) have thier leadership reduced by 2.

 

its cause and effect, one unit charging from one speeder causes the redcution.. this tells me that if a second unit charges from a second speeder, they too would reduce the leadership.

moreover the fact is states enemy units (plural) tells me that any enemy an assaulting scout unit touches has its leadership reduced.

more importantly the cerberus launchers are not written without limitations, the effects only last for the duration of the assault phase, if other limitations were meant to be imposed, they would be written in the rules above.. As it stands we have to use RAW which says each unit that charges from each speeder causes a reducvtion of leadership.

 

Gc08

[pingo]

Things don't always stack. Take a power fist. It doubles the user's strength to a maximum of 10. So, does Calgar attack with strength of 10 as he has one fist with doubles his strength to 8, and another that doubles it again to 16, and therefore 10 (as that's the maximum)?

Bad example, as you can only use rules from one special weapon in close combat so it is moot; he only ever gets to S8 from the single fist.

 

Yeah, I was just giving an example of something that changes a base characteristic but does not stack if there are more than one.

 

The good thing about this is that there is a rule which tell us you can't do it.

 

I still don't agree that your interpretation is certain, GC08.

 

I think it's best to leave this debate alone now as it's taken over the thread too much. I can't seem to make my point clear, so perhaps it's my fault really, and there's only so many times I'm willing to smack my head against a wall :blink:

 

You are probably right, GC08. Probably. All I've been trying to say is that this is not 100% certain due to the misleading wording of the rule. I thought it was unclear, so did Mal, and so did you else I'm sure you wouldn't have put it in your FAQ in the first place.

[greatcrusade08]

im going to have to say that although the wording is not the same as normal modifiers, the argument that the reduction cannot be reduced any further (i.e stackable) is an assumption as there is nothing in the rulebook that supports this argument.

just beacuse the wording says reduced by 2 doesnt mean it cant be altered further.

 

reduced by 2 and modified by -2 means the same thing.

 

Gc08

[Frosty the Pyro]

Generaly if the same rule can effect something cumutivly, it will say so. example, lash whips. Of course GW is not consitant so that may or may not mean anything

[greatcrusade08]

Generaly if the same rule can effect something cumutivly, it will say so. example, lash whips. Of course GW is not consitant so that may or may not mean anything

 

IME it only says so when applying limits, im not familiar with lash whips so i cant say whether thats the case.. its certainly the case that different codeci are written very differently in ref to rules and wording.

 

Ive been giving this argument some thought, and the basis of the counter argument is the wording of the 'reduction' and because it doesnt say modifier it means they cannot stack.

I have to say this is a little silly, there is no rule that states a rule must have the word modifier to stack, simply that it IS a modifier.

and what is a reduction if not a modifier?

 

I dont normally argue enlgish language, but since its the wording at debate here, heres the english definition of modifier:

modifier

–noun

1. a person or thing that modifies.

 

since a change to any number is a modification of its original state, then the 'reduction' is infact a modifier and therefore does stack. (using that argument as a base)

the power fist modifies your strength but doesnt say 'modifies' it says doubles!

 

I stand by my original argument that the cerbeus launcher rules arent stacking as they are on two seperate LSS, its the effects that are cumulative.. it can be likened to lash, where multiple different units impose the same effect on the same unit.

 

Im sure some will still argue this point, but i cant see an argument that is good enough to be used over the gaming board that wont result in a book to face incident.. therefore it stands as the reasonable rule to use in friendly games without resulting to arguments.. (the whole point to my article)

 

Gc08

[pingo]

Ive been giving this argument some thought, and the basis of the counter argument is the wording of the 'reduction' and because it doesnt say modifier it means they cannot stack.

 

I promised myself I wouldn't say anything more, but... this was not quite my argument, and also simplifies it somewhat too much.

 

I was unclear on whether 'Leadership reduced by 2' meant in total, or per assaulting Scout unit. I would actually proably be just as unsure if it said 'Leadership modified by -2'. Is that is total? Or per LSS? There is reasonable doubt I think.

 

I also don't get why a 'modifier' necessarily stacks, particularly with another instance of itself or its own effects?

 

As I said, it's probably meant to stack, but if I came across an opponent who didn't think it did, I can understand that, and his face would be book-free.

 

I just think that you are too readily disregarding people's doubt on the matter, and more than that calling it 'silly'. I have acknowledged repeatedly that you could be right and what you say is probably the intent behind the rule, but I can't see why you can't admit there is at least some iota of doubt, especially as it's in your FAQ of unclear rules we can't be sure of. I just wanted to present the other side of the matter so then people can have the chance to decide for themselves. Not everyone will share your conclusion.

 

I'm not sure there is a definitive answer and people should discuss this with their opponent and roll for the interpretation if need be. Most of the time, I'll bet both will agree it can stack. But I'll also bet a number of people will feel it doesn't and they are entitled to this view until GW give an official ruling.

 

And above all else, 'The Most Important Rule' should be invoked -_-

 

 

EDIT: Re-reading my post, the tone seems somewhat ... short ... apologies, that was not the intent!

[Mal]

And above all else, 'The Most Important Rule' should be invoked ;)

 

Seconded.

 

The ambigiousness of the rules is the whole reason we have this rule, and if for any reason both sides do not agree it should be used without further comment... as the rule states 'in the spirit of the game', which is ofc to have fun, not bicker over the interpretation of a rule.

[greatcrusade08]

The ambigiousness of the rules is the whole reason we have this rule, and if for any reason both sides do not agree it should be used without further comment... as the rule states 'in the spirit of the game', which is ofc to have fun, not bicker over the interpretation of a rule.

 

I have said on many occasions that these grey area rules are ones that i use and no-one finds need to argue in all my games, i take the most rational explanation and treat it as correct.

after all if the rule requires interpretation then your far far away from RAW.

It is in the grey area rules simply because people like yourself will always disagree , some just becuase they want completeness others becuase they can use it to thier advantage on the tabletop. I personally cant see a remotely strong counter argumen in this case, the wording may be a little off but that isnt enough reason to argue that the whole rule is ambiguous.. ive explained pure RAW in this case dozens of times.

 

Weirdly Pingo and i are kind of arguing the same point (just from different angles) you guys can see an argument i cannot, but ultimately it was probably meant to stack.

If we were to 'invoke the most important rule' everytime someone disagreed with a rule, you will soon find the whole process is open to abuse by penny pinching rules lawyers... hence the book to face incidents. (after all i can interpret ANY rule to mean something else, so why shouldnt i if someones being difficult with me?)

The purpose of this article is to avoid having to even argue about these things.. which then leads to "most important rule".. im trying to remove the whole thing.. and as i said regardless of all else the argument i put forward is the strongest and most reasonable.

 

I also don't get why a 'modifier' necessarily stacks, particularly with another instance of itself or its own effects?

We have set precedants of modifiers stacking. it either does or it doesnt, with other examples to fall back on its safe to suggest they DO stack.

 

As I said, it's probably meant to stack, but if I came across an opponent who didn't think it did, I can understand that, and his face would be book-free.

everyones different and your free to ignore this article, i wrote it to help people but ultimately you will find some awkward gits who wont agree to any arguments but their own.. i respect someone for arguing thier points, but like i said my argument is strongest in this instance and i wouldnt want to play a guy who nitpicked every little "could be/suggests/possibilities" argument it saps the fun from the game which is again the whole point tio these articles.

 

Gc08

 

Edit: lets face it a 'roll off' every time a rule comes into question can really destroy the tactical game, by agreeing beforehand on the most suitable understadning of rules prevents your whole game being reliant on one or two dice rolls... that doesnt sound fun to me.. IMO this FAQ would work far better than GW's roll offs in achieving "the most mportant rule"

 

let me clarify so no-one can misunderstands my points here.. if this were a truelly ambiguous rule id agree to a roll off, but lets face it as arguments go "it suggests it may be" is hardly cause to question a workable rule, especially considering the number of arguments and examples i have given to add weight to what is actually RAW.. A squad charging from THE speeder, if it makes contact with enemy units their leadership is reduced by two....

a reduction IS a modifier, we have precedents that modifiers stack hence unless noted this does too... yet you are happy to throw away this rule on the tabletop and why? becuase of a "what if it means this", or "the wording may imply its not the case"... im sorry but those arguments can be used as pingo says to figure out the exact meaning of the rules in a debate but on the table top i wouldnt let anyone abuse the tiny ambiguety.. its not cricket and hence i wouldnt play them or if they continues to argue for arguments sake i probably would treat them to a book sized sandwich.