Death Leaper vs...

[Morticon]

Hey guys, interesting issue here that stemmed from a conversation in the BA forum.

 

We were talking about mephiston and his weaknesses and someone mentioned the Death Leaper.

 

However, it was mentioned (incorrectly) that DL only effects Independent Characters.

 

This is not the case.

 

The DL rule says:

 

"nominate a single enemy character at the beginning of the game as the victim of the Deathleaper's psycholigical attacks. Roll a D3. While the Deathleaper is alive, that model's leadership is reduced by the result rolled"

 

Now, the horrible thing is that, according to the definition(pg. 47), Mephiston(and Sanguinor for that matter) are neither Independent Characters, nor are they "upgraded characters fielded as part of units".

 

RAW this seems quite open-shut.

 

RAI though, it seems sketch.

 

Your thoughts?

[Frosty the Pyro]

The definition for upgrade character is very vauge, and includes space marine sergents with no special equipment. I feel that mephiston meets that definition, he is after all feilded in a unit, just because its a unit of one doesnt change that. Aditionaly independent and upgrade are not the only types of characters, the quote is "normaly armies include two types of characters." Thus there can be some abnormal examples. And even without the vaugities of upgrade characters, if you look to pg 49 under special characters you can see "they have a personal name and not just a tittle."

 

Mephiston is a special character

[Morticon]

The definition for upgrade character is very vauge, and includes space marine sergents with no special equipment. I feel that mephiston meets that definition, he is after all feilded in a unit, just because its a unit of one doesnt change that. Aditionaly independent and upgrade are not the only types of characters, the quote is "normaly armies include two types of characters." Thus there can be some abnormal examples. And even without the vaugities of upgrade characters, if you look to pg 49 under special characters you can see "they have a personal name and not just a tittle."

 

Mephiston is a special character

 

You feel mephiston meets the description of a character that is "fielded as part of a unit"? I dont think thats accurate at all by its very definition.

 

I agree with you on the point of "normally" - however in the abnormal situations we will rely on information provided with the description of said abnormal situations.

If there is none, we can assume its not either an IC or an Upgrade Character.

 

Your last point however, I feel, is the only one worth merit. And if mephiston is defined in the BA book as a special character- then you are 100% correct.

 

However, you will be hardpressed to find a rule in the BA codex that says Mephiston is a special character.

Additionally, the rule on page 49 says: "SCs can be either Independent or upgrade characters.."

Mephiston and the Sanguinor fits neither description - and is also (to memory) the first time GW have done this with a non-mc (hence the issues).

 

If we do find proof he is an SC we have another issue.

If you wish to argue that he is definitely a SC - you will also have to conclusively argue that he is either an IC or an upgrade character.

Here lies our problem since as noted he does not fit the description for either.

[stinkenheim]

he's a character on his own, so hes independent of others... :P

 

yeah ok, its a bit of a stupid way of looking at it, but he's clearly a special character (he's unique for a start which means he's special) he just fits in the implied third group. the other two being IC and upgrades, he fits int he group implied by the term 'normally'.

 

on side note, the rule says 'SC's can be either IC or upgrade'. it doen't say they have to be, just tht they can be. so dit can go both ways.

[Morticon]

on side note, the rule says 'SC's can be either IC or upgrade'. it doen't say they have to be, just tht they can be. so dit can go both ways.

 

Thats linguistically incorrect.

 

If something can either be A or B, it cannot be C (without adequate specification or information).

 

Additionally, the third group for "characters" and the issue with him being in a third group is as mentioned above:

 

" however in the abnormal situations we will rely on information provided with the description of said abnormal situations.

If there is none, we can assume its not either an IC or an Upgrade Character."

 

Additionally, pg 49 does not give any leeway (or option for a 3rd group) for "special characters"

 

 

And while I dont doubt they are special characters in our common understanding of SCs - we need to have prooof of them being a SC rules wise.

 

 

The crux is this:

 

Is Meph/Sang a "Special Character".

If yes, then

He is either an "upgrade character" or an "IC". (pg 49)

 

Is he an IC?

No, he is not.

Is he an upgrade character?

No, he is not (by definition).

 

(and as noted there is no room for a third group under the SC description on pg 49).

 

 

To be 100% honest- its very wordy and dumb, but the writing of "character" in the Nids dex is very poor, as it the foresight of an unprecedented non-IC character.

 

However, if Daemon Princes and a few others wouldnt fall under the DL spell - i dont see why Sang/Meph should.

[Grey Mage]

There is no definition for a unit simply being a 'character' in the BRB. Not anywhere.

 

So we must use basic english on this one I think, and heres a definition:

fictional character: an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction (play or film or story); "she is the main character in the novel"

From the princeton dictionairy, first entry under 'character'.

 

He is certainly a character, by the basic edicts of the english language.

[Morticon]

There is no definition for a unit simply being a 'character' in the BRB. Not anywhere.

 

100% Correct

 

So we must use basic english on this one I think,

Heres where you lose me.

 

Why?

 

Why must we use the language definition of the word, if the word is defined in game terms and he as a unit of 1 does not fit that description?

Surely thats a bit backwards?

 

Additionally,

 

surely then a Daemon Prince or the Avatar is also a character?

[rat of vengence]

I agree with GM here, can we go with common sense on this one, even if it isn't spelt out in the codex?

 

RoV

[Morticon]

To be 100% honest- its very wordy and dumb,

 

Just to reiterate my position, Im a RAP/RAI player for the large part of things.

However, I want to know what the RAW is to the letter so I can be confident one way or another.

 

Common sense, as we've seen before, is another matter often entirely unrelated to how the rules are written.

[Turel]

I also feel this is just pure semantics.

 

Let's play fair. Mephiston is already a powerhouse, he is obviously a character, it seems obvious to me that the Death Leaper should be able to affect him.

 

However Mort, you are 100 percent correct in that the book does not define him as either an independent character, nor an upgrade character, and thus I can see your point entirely. You've argued the point, but for clarity's sake, do you feel he should or should not be affected?

 

- Turel.

[JamesI]

By RAW, I have to say Mephiston is not a character and immune.

 

I don't consider that the intention, so I wouldn't enforce that ruling though.

[Turel]

"I don't consider that the intention, so I wouldn't enforce that ruling though."

 

That for me, is precisely it. The way it's written is ambiguous, but not intentionally so. Meph, in my opinion, had IC status removed purely so that he couldn't join other squads, but as is often the case, GW forgets things written in other codexes which may come into conflict with the ruling.

 

- Turel.

[Grey Mage]

There is no definition for a unit simply being a 'character' in the BRB. Not anywhere.

 

100% Correct

 

So we must use basic english on this one I think,

Heres where you lose me.

 

Why?

 

Why must we use the language definition of the word, if the word is defined in game terms and he as a unit of 1 does not fit that description?

Surely thats a bit backwards?

 

Additionally,

 

surely then a Daemon Prince or the Avatar is also a character?

I think you misunderstand me Morticon. I was saying with the lack of a definition for what is simply a 'character' we should use english, because there is no definition of what a 'character is. but if you want a more in depth look at the BRB aswell I can provide this aswell. Though I must ask, how can you agree with me that there is no definition for what a simple 'character is' in black and white and in the same breadth say there there is?

 

There is a definition for an "Independant Character", and another for "Upgrade Character". As noted, Mephiston does not meet all the criteria for either part.

 

Note, however that there is only one criteria for being a 'special character', and that is that you are a unit labeled as "unique" wich further means that only one of them may be included in the army. It is noted that a 'Special Character' can also be an independant character or an upgrade character, but nothing requiring one to be either.

 

Mephiston is most certainly a 'Special Character' which among other things means he must be a 'Character'. One of those "Veteran warriors, brilliant officers, possessed prophets and ferocious war-leaders".

 

EDIT:

Note, this is not the first time this has come up, merely the first time anyones had it in their heads to debate it. Inquisitor Lord Karamazov and Bjorn Fell-Handed are both examples of 'characters' who are not ICs, aswell as Deathleaper himself, the Doom of Malantai, and Old One Eye among others.

 

And yes, that includes the Eldar Avatar, and I would argue that a Daemon Prince is most assuredly a "vicious war-leader" or a "possessed prophet" in C:CSM and very well targetable.

[shatter]

unique character = character

 

open, shut, reopen... peer.. shut... openshut...

 

o..p...en...

 

SHUT

 

0.o

[Seahawk]

By a very strict reading of RAW, Mephiston is not a character of any type because he doesn't have that distinction anywhere in his unit entry as being independent or upgrade. Because of the BRB entry, special characters are defined as being independent character or upgrade characters and nothing else. Thus, being neither a character nor a special character, he'd be immune to the Deathleaper.

 

The same is true of the Sanguinor, Captain Tycho (Death Company version), Sly Marbo, the Deathleaper, the Swarmlord, the Doom of Malantai, Old One Eye, Bjorn the Fell Handed (vehicle anyway but still), the Avatar, and whatever others fall into this nebulous category.

[Hazard]

I'd go by RAW: not IC or upgrade character so DL has to pick something else. After all not being an IC is a particular part of Mephiston as a character - he can't get a unit to screen him self from shooting.

[Mike Somerville]

There is no definition for a unit simply being a 'character' in the BRB. Not anywhere.

 

CHARACTERS

Veteran warriors, brilliant officers, possessed

prophets and ferocious war-leaders can

inspire the troops to great feats of heroism

(or fiendish bravery as the case may be) and

are often quicker, stronger and more skilled

in combat. In Warhammer 40,000 these kinds

of powerful individuals are called ‘characters’.

 

pg 47, BBB.

 

Warhammer 40,000 armies normally include two types

of characters:

 

same page

 

 

-Mike

[Morticon]

I also feel this is just pure semantics.

 

Let's play fair. Mephiston is already a powerhouse, he is obviously a character, it seems obvious to me that the Death Leaper should be able to affect him.

 

However Mort, you are 100 percent correct in that the book does not define him as either an independent character, nor an upgrade character, and thus I can see your point entirely. You've argued the point, but for clarity's sake, do you feel he should or should not be affected?

 

- Turel.

 

I really dont know.

Id feel like a complete dink in a tournament arguing otherwise.

But, then id demand fairness across the board and have Daemon Princes etc affected too.

 

Thing is, it could have been so easily avoided if they had written "HQ Unit" or even "HQ model"- similar to the Sanguinors rule.

[Grey Mage]

But it doesnt just effect those, it also effects Exarchs, Seargents, etc. Those are all 'upgrade characters'.

[DevianID]

I think if you look for characters outside of 'independant' or 'upgrade' you quickly get to a point where, by playing fair, pretty much everything becomes a character in someones eyes. Libby dreadnoughts? Regular Libbys are characters, so fine libby dreads count too. Monstrous Creatures? Characters. Single unit models? Characters. Models with heavy weapons? Upgrade characters. Then we argue the nuances of the Swarmlord versus a tervigon being a character, or whether a tervigon is a character if an HQ but not when a troop choice.

 

All in all, if you want a definate answer for a tourney type situation where such a decision needs to be made impartially and before any games or army lists are finalized, then you need to make a clear cut decision to limit the use only to independant and upgrade characters, defined by the army book. Ignore everything else, no matter your or anyone else's opinion on the matter, just so everyone can play on the same page. This way, everyone knows who and what will be affected, and will be able to plan accordingly.

 

On the other hand, in a friendly game where this comes up, at least it will happen at the beginning of the game where in the event of no one being favorable to a compromise, either a roll off or outright changing army lists can be implemented so no one feels cheated and fun gameplay can commence.

[rat of vengence]

Come on fellas. Even those who think he isn't a character are discomforted by that idea, as stated by DevianID and Morticon. We can see it is obviously one of those many blind spots in the rules that GW is so good at. I think in cases like this, we have to go with the bleedin' obviuos, even if it isn't RaW.

 

RoV

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Mephiston is not defined as a special character, independent character or upgrade character in the codex. So for example he cannot join any other units. If he cannot benefit from the rules for being a character then why should he have to suffer any of the disadvantages? Some people say he is such a powerhouse that he should suffer the -d3 to his leadership from the Deathleaper, but on the other hand you are paying all those points to field him. I certainly do not go by RAW 100 percent of the time but this is a particular case where I will. So to me no he should not suffer -d3 to his leadership. I would argue for this at a tournament or friendly games. It's very clear to me.

 

0b :rolleyes:

[Grey Mage]

He has plenty of Strengths, thank you very much. His lack of IC statusis a draw back to help balance those, that much is clear.

 

He IS a character. Hes not an IC, but he is a C.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

He is not listed as a character according to the rules which is what is pertinent to this discussion. it has nothing to do with his point cost. You can define him as a character but you are doing that outside the rules.

 

0b

[Morticon]

Come on fellas. Even those who think he isn't a character are discomforted by that idea, as stated by DevianID and Morticon. We can see it is obviously one of those many blind spots in the rules that GW is so good at. I think in cases like this, we have to go with the bleedin' obviuos, even if it isn't RaW.

 

RoV

 

RoV - my hesitation comes from honestly not being sure what the intent of that wording was, and what the intent of Mephistons classification was.

Im CONVINCED (in my own little head) that the games developers play off of each others ideas when they are designing dexes.

 

"Oh? You're including a unit that does that? Cool!"

*runs off and includes an ability that cant be affected by such-and-such.

 

That kinda vibe.

 

Fluff-wise, I'm also hesitant for the Lord of Death to be effected by a scary bug he can totally destroy in combat.

 

Anyway, I dont think the Mephiston/Sang rules are poorly written, but the concept of "character" is poorly defined in the Nids rule. Still- i don't wanna screw anyone out of anything deserved.

 

Also, im pretty sure we agreed he was a "character" by language definition, not by rules definition, which is what BO is arguing methinks ><;