Do Seraphim Boost Their Own Ld?

[Aidoneus]

Okay, the WH codex is freely available online, so I'm not gonna sweat copying the entire text of the relevant rule here.

 

Angelic Visage: Any Adeptus Sororitas unit with a model within 6" of at least one model in the Seraphim unit adds +1 to their Leadership, up to a maximum of 10, when taking Morale checks and Pinning tests. Note that other units of Seraphim do not benefit from this rule and it is not cumulative.

 

So, to benefit from the Ld boost, you must fulfill the following requirements:

 

1) Be an Adeptus Sororitas units

2) Have a model within 6" of at least one model in the Seraphim unit

3) Not already have Ld 10

4) Not be an other unit of Seraphim

5) Not already be benefitting from another Seraphim unit's Angelic Visage

 

Now, ask yourself, does a unit of Seraphim qualify to benefit from its own Angelic Visage rule?

 

-Adeptus Sororitas? check

-Wtihin 6" of itself? check

-Not already Ld 10? check

-Not be a different unit of Seraphim from the one granting the boost? check

-Not be benefitting from another unit's AV boost? check

 

As far as I can tell, by RAW, it works. It is quite obviously not RAI for a number of reasons, but I see nothing blocking it RAW.

 

Anyone care to point out why I'm wrong? Because, try as I might, I just don't see it.

[GTang]

You can argue for it, but remember not to use it with the Book of St. Lucius's rerolls.

[ArmouredWing]

You can argue for it, but remember not to use it with the Book of St. Lucius's rerolls.

Ummm, BoSL doesn't give rerolls, just makes all Ld tests at bears unmodified Ld.

[Aidoneus]

Right. So when negative modifiers are in play you'd choose to go with the Book at Ld9, and when you're considering the Ld bubble they project to other units, this wouldn't come into play. But for your basic run-of-the-mill Morale or Pinning test that the Seraphim unit takes, it should be on Ld 10, right?

[stinkenheim]

I'm of the opinion that no they don't get the bonus to their leadership.

 

2) Have a model within 6" of at least one model in the Seraphim unit

Technically they don't. Alot of rules like this state something akin to 'the model and any unit within xxx'. Not all but a fair few of them. Its kind of like the PDF Dantes preferred enemy not being usable by him because he was never technically within range.

 

5) Not already be benefitting from another Seraphim unit's Angelic Visage

If they are unable to be bolstered by another unit of Seraphim, it stands to reason that they can't bolster themselves up.

 

At the end of the day I'm not too fussed as no one I know plays WH or uses them as allies. Its something you will have to discuss with your group but thats my view on it.

[GTang]

If any friendly unit within 6" doesn't apply here, it wouldn't apply for the Book, either.

 

It wouldn't normally come up for me, either, as a Canoness is usually close enough to take the 10... or the other penalties are much larger than this particular +1.

[Aidoneus]

Say the Seraphim squad has at least two models. To maintain unit coherency, those two models must be within 2" of each other. Necessarily, if two models are within 2" of each other, they must be within 6" of each other. So by maintaining coherency, the Seraphim unit has "a model within 6" of at least one model in the Seraphim unit."

 

I'll admit, it gets dicier when there's only one Seraph there. But when there are at least two, I'm pretty sure it's legit.

[ShinyRhino]

Those are some thin straws to grasp at for a +1 Ld boost. Do you really want to be :cuss for such a thing?

 

The "unit" is made up of X Seraphim models. You are essentially arguing that so long as X>1, the unit is within 6" of itself, which goes counter to your argument that if X=1, it cannot be within 6" of itself.

[Aidoneus]

That wasn't my argument at all. I was merely conceding that the arguments for it going through when X=1 aren't quite as solid as for when X>1. Personally, I'm pretty sure any given model is necessarily within 6" of itself; that just seems like an obvious a priori truth. But as some have pointed out, precedent is maybe not so clear on the subject (no real counter-example, just hints that RAI doesn't work that way).

 

Also, please don't think I'm actually :cuss in real life. I severely doubt I'd ever try to pull this on someone in an actual game. Maybe if they were being a total pr*** to me, and it were in a tournament so I couldn't just up and walk away... but even then, probably not. I honestly just like pulling apart these sorts of loopholes as a purely mental exercise. For one, I'm weird and I think that sort of thing is fun (probably appropriate that I was a Philosophy major and am going to Law School next year). Additionally, I like to find these things out ahead of time so that if anyone tries to use the loophole themselves, I'll have a ready response.

[ShinyRhino]

Also, please don't think I'm actually :cuss in real life. I severely doubt I'd ever try to pull this on someone in an actual game. Maybe if they were being a total pr*** to me, and it were in a tournament so I couldn't just up and walk away... but even then, probably not. I honestly just like pulling apart these sorts of loopholes as a purely mental exercise. For one, I'm weird and I think that sort of thing is fun (probably appropriate that I was a Philosophy major and am going to Law School next year). Additionally, I like to find these things out ahead of time so that if anyone tries to use the loophole themselves, I'll have a ready response.

 

Gotcha. I tend to get a little touchy when I read some of these loopholes, lol.