Psychic Scream and other 6th LD issues?

[Lagrath]

So there is a new power in telepathy called Psychic Scream. You subtract the unit's LD from 3d6 and they take that many wounds.

 

However, in the section on characters it simply says to use their LD for leadership TESTS, and does not mention substituting a character's leadership for the rest of the unit's LD for anything other than specific kinds of Leadership Tests. The power is not a LD test. You just use the LD of the "target", and then take off the correct number of wounds from the "target unit"- if this were an issue of toughness (or something else), you know that you would use the majority toughness of the unit. What happens with simply subtracting the LD of the unit? Do you use the LD of the model in the unit that is the closest to the caster, following the logic of the new wound allocation rules? Or you use the LD of the majority of the models in the unit?

[Jacinda]

If you treat it like a shooting attack (and being witchfire, it really is) the target would be the closet model in the unit and would use its Ld. However the power says "the target unit suffers ..." so the target is not an individual, but a complete unit. If it were against the units Toughness you are correct, we would go by the most models' T. This is not toughness but Leadership. So we go by the Unit's Leadership. Unless we can find a rule that says otherwise, the Unit's Ld is the highest Ld of a model in the unit. (pg 7)

[Grey Mage]

This problem is solved by reading the section for characteristics in the begining of the book wherein it states that you always use the highest value in the unit for this kind of thing.

[Lagrath]

both of the two different sections you two are referencing on page 7 refer to different leadership values A MODEL, not within a unit. for LD Tests it specifically says to use the highest LD for the model OR the unit its in, but psychic scream is not a LD Test...

[Grey Mage]

" - When a single test is required for the whole unit, use the highest relevant characteristic in the unit."

 

Last bullet under characteristic tests.

[Jacinda]

^^

It does not get any easier than that. Unless you can find a more specific rule that states otherwise, this is the value to use.

[Seahawk]

That's the thing though, and I now see where the OP is coming from.

 

Page 7 describes everything there is to know about Characteristic Tests, and only that. Psychic Shriek doesn't require a Characteristic Test of any kind, ergo incompatible rules. It's like saying the rules for scoring a hit with Shooting are the same as for Close Combat.

 

What we need to find out is: What is a unit's Leadership value? How is this defined? Well, it's defined as a certain number. Well, what if there is more than one number? We have: "Where a model has more than one Leadership value, a Leadership test is always taken against the highest of the values."

 

Unfortunately, that only specifies a model, and only a model taking a Characteristic Test...neither of which address the issue at hand.

 

What we have is a unit with multiple characteristics, and we simply need to find a number to subtract from a potentially larger random number. This is what the rules aren't providing for us by writ, though by intent we could probably find it.

[thade]

Occam's Razor. It seems a pretty safe bet at least that "the highest Ld in the unit" is what to use in unclear cases; it's always been that way. :) Any change that significant would merit a mention for sure.

[DarkGuard]

Occam's Razor. It seems a pretty safe bet at least that "the highest Ld in the unit" is what to use in unclear cases; it's always been that way. ;) Any change that significant would merit a mention for sure.

 

This would be the easiest and most ideal way to resolve this IMO.

[Lagrath]

That's the thing though, and I now see where the OP is coming from.

 

Page 7 describes everything there is to know about Characteristic Tests, and only that. Psychic Shriek doesn't require a Characteristic Test of any kind, ergo incompatible rules. It's like saying the rules for scoring a hit with Shooting are the same as for Close Combat.

 

What we need to find out is: What is a unit's Leadership value? How is this defined? Well, it's defined as a certain number. Well, what if there is more than one number? We have: "Where a model has more than one Leadership value, a Leadership test is always taken against the highest of the values."

 

Unfortunately, that only specifies a model, and only a model taking a Characteristic Test...neither of which address the issue at hand.

 

What we have is a unit with multiple characteristics, and we simply need to find a number to subtract from a potentially larger random number. This is what the rules aren't providing for us by writ, though by intent we could probably find it.

 

Ding ding ding, nice to see that at least one other person read that page carefully. Grey Mage and Jacinda didn't care at all that they were quoting CHARACTERISTIC TESTS where you roll under the value of X characteristic, which is 100% irrelevant to this topic.

 

Occam's Razor. It seems a pretty safe bet at least that "the highest Ld in the unit" is what to use in unclear cases; it's always been that way. ;) Any change that significant would merit a mention for sure.

 

This is totally wrong; there are a ton of important rules that existed in 5th because they were explicitly mentioned that are simply absent in 6th. If a rule disappears entirely, you can't just say "Well it existed in a different edition and there's no new paragraph going out of the way to point out the obvious fact that this rule does not appear again in 6th, and in the absence of a special paragraph confirming the nonexistence of an absent rule, we can conclude that the missing rule is still in place magically."

 

There is nothing in the book that I have found or anyone else has pointed out so far that says that you can use the highest LD in the unit and count it towards Psychic Shriek's function; in fact, you apparently can't use it for ANYTHING other than "leadership tests" that the unit makes, which is a very specific process unrelated to psychic shriek.

 

As far as I can tell, this leaves you either 1) using the LD characteristic of the closest model you are shooting and than applying the wounds to the rest of the unit as well as bleed-over OR 2) using the majority LD characteristic of the majority of models in the unit (which is not stated specifically anywhere in the book either, but is exactly how shooting attacks work vs multiple toughness characteristics so you could make an argument of inference). RAW and in terms of looking at the fluff of what the psychic power is doing, I personally think Option 2 makes the most sense.

[Grey Mage]

No, I read it just fine and I understood your argument- but youre guessing in this area and the only information on unit-wide characteristics is found in that section, as quoted. I see no reason to assume wed look at shooting, since shooting no longer has to deal with whole units- you can choose to shoot at part of a unit, all of a unit, or even individual models if youre lucky and wounding certainly doesnt work on a unit-wide basis.

 

Thus, I look at characteristics, where it says to use the highest value. This is also in line with GWs other games where similar abilities to this use the highest LD value, and with the Doom of Malentai's ability thats nearly identical to this and also uses the highest leadership available.

[thade]

If the argument is "It gives us no answer, so we have none" then...what are you going to do in the meantime?

 

What is the simplest solution? The one that makes the fewest assumptions? What might Occam do?

 

Use the highest Leadership in the unit.

[Lagrath]

No, I read it just fine and I understood your argument- but youre guessing in this area and the only information on unit-wide characteristics is found in that section, as quoted. I see no reason to assume wed look at shooting, since shooting no longer has to deal with whole units- you can choose to shoot at part of a unit, all of a unit, or even individual models if youre lucky and wounding certainly doesnt work on a unit-wide basis.

 

Thus, I look at characteristics, where it says to use the highest value. This is also in line with GWs other games where similar abilities to this use the highest LD value, and with the Doom of Malentai's ability thats nearly identical to this and also uses the highest leadership available.

 

I really don't know how many times you are going to insist on incorrectly paraphrasing an irrelevant section of the rules, despite multiple people directly pointing out why you are completely misunderstanding some (very clear and simple) sentences in the rules.

 

For the last time, let's go over everything that's wrong in your most recent post:

 

1) "the only information on unit-wide characteristics is found in that section" - as I already pointed out this is wrong, as there is at least one case (shooting at units with multiple toughness values) that provides information on how to resolve issues with unit-wide characteristics

 

2) "I see no reason to assume wed look at shooting, since shooting no longer has to deal with whole units" - this is also wrong, since (as has already been pointed out by different people) this ability is a psychic shooting attack and therefore it may be helpful to consult any other guidelines on how to resolve unit-wide characteristics on shooting attacks (see #1 right above). What you are referencing with focus fire has exactly zero to do with why the rest of us were looking to the shooting rules.

 

3) "I look at characteristics, where it says to use the highest value" - as has been pointed out many times already, this is NOT what it says at all and you are paraphrasing incorrectly. The two different sentences you and the others are referencing are in sections on CHARACTERISTIC TESTS and LEADERSHIP TESTS, which are very specific processes 100% irrelevant to our current discussion, as the power does not cause either and the "leadership of the unit" is not the same as either. There is a section on resolving issues when a MODEL has multiple values, which - as also already mentioned - does zero to help resolve our current question with a UNIT.

 

At this point it looks as if my suspicions have been confirmed; there is nothing anywhere outside of page 7 in 6th edition that directly addresses this issue, and the only inference you can make is from the shooting/multiple toughness rules. Nothing on page 7 says to use the highest LD of any model in the unit as the "leadership of the unit" for anything other than a Leadership Test, which I already knew before starting this thread. As far as I'm concerned, it therefore looks like there's no more use in having a thread discussion on this until there is an FAQ.

[thade]

For the last time, let's go over everything that's wrong in your most recent post:

 

At this point it looks as if my suspicions have been confirmed; there is nothing anywhere outside of page 7 in 6th edition that directly addresses this issue, and the only inference you can make is from the shooting/multiple toughness rules. Nothing on page 7 says to use the highest LD of any model in the unit as the "leadership of the unit" for anything other than a Leadership Test, which I already knew before starting this thread. As far as I'm concerned, it therefore looks like there's no more use in having a thread discussion on this until there is an FAQ.

Simply put, there are a lot of broad (and unfortunately vague) assumptions here. You are assuming that - in the absence of information - we all must:

• Find another rule that fits the model that this rule should fit.
  
• Actually settle on what the "model" for this rule is.
  
• Extrapolate something and use it.
  

Alternatively, we could employ Occam's Razor and make a single, simple assumption: that we fit the one rule we actually have about the question at hand (the only rule on Leadership, in this case) as best and simply as we can. Not only is this easy and sensible...but, honestly, it's par for the course. In fact, it's so trivial I wonder why one would argue the point at all?

 

It's simple and easy to just use the max Ld. Doesn't seem to break anything and - frankly - it's what we're used to. Yes, things have changed, but the big changes merit mention. No mention? Must not have been a big change. If it was in fact an omission it'll get FAQ'd, but in the meantime reducing complexity is a good idea.

[Grey Mage]

1) Multiple toughness values doesnt imply unit wide, as I noted shooting no longer has to be addressed on a unit wide basis. Its also got nothing to do with this power wich involves neither shooting nor toughness.

 

2) Its still in no way a standard shooting attack, using only one mechanic out of the shooting rules- range.

 

3) Yes, it does in fact say to use the highest values for characteristic tests. Im not paraphrasing above, it was a direct quote.

 

The inference of toughness on the unit is far off base, as the similar abilities already present in the game use the highest leadership, as is appropriate for unit-wide tests like this.

[thade]

The inference of toughness on the unit is far off base, as the similar abilities already present in the game use the highest leadership, as is appropriate for unit-wide tests like this.

One might say it's in direct violation of Occam's Razor. <3

[Jacinda]

I have a rule that says use the highest leadership of the unit.

 

Why are we still arguing? My rule is too general for your specific situation so you feel that making up a rule on the spot is better?

[thade]

This is a bit off-topic and possibly seems ad hominem (for which, I apologize) but it's really meant for no one in particular and I think about it all the time.

 

Whenever you set up to square off against a rule, consider these things:

1. Do I stand to benefit if I'm right?

2. How many people are there that neither benefit nor suffer if I'm wrong?

3. It's never worth it to argue for the sake of arguing. Ever.

 

This one is pretty simple, especially considering it's a new edition. We have bigger fish to fry.

 

EDIT: egregious typo

[Lagrath]

Im not paraphrasing above, it was a direct quote.

 

It was NOT a direct quote, it was a very incorrect paraphrasing:

 

Thus, I look at characteristics, where it says to use the highest value.

 

No, there is NOTHING on page 7 or anywhere else in 6th edition that says this. This is a completely incorrect paraphrasing. There is no rule in 6th edition that says "The highest LD in a unit counts as the LD of the unit for all intents and purposes" or "If there is a character in a unit with a higher LD value than the rest of the unit, this character's higher LD counts as the LD value for the whole unit." In order for something on page 7 to be applicable as a rule towards resolving how Psychic Shriek functions, it would have to say something very close to either of these two sentences. I started this thread hoping that someone could point me towards a sentence like this elsewhere in the book that I hadn't found, since anyone who reads page 7 carefully (such as Seahawk) will notice that this is completely absent.

 

What we have instead on page 7 are two completely different sentences on what happens in two very specific and 100% unrelated scenarios: rolling equal or under a characteristic on a CHARACTERISTIC TEST, and using the higher LD value of a character in the event that a unit undergoes the process of taking a type of LEADERSHIP TEST. In your most recent post you were more specific and this time you referenced one of these rule correctly:

 

it does in fact say to use the highest values for characteristic tests.

 

Yes, it does; this is something completely different from what you said in your lazy paraphrasing in the prior post. "Use the highest values for CHARACTERISTIC TESTS" is a VERY different rule than "use the highest value in the unit as counting for the whole unit in all circumstances" or "for any event in which a a whole unit is targeted and the 'target's leadership' is referenced, always use the highest value of any model within the unit".

 

Even after having this (frankly obvious) distinction spelled out (see Seahawk's post above, or any of mine), you and Jacinda and company continue to insist on trying to generalize very specific things that the rules allow you to do in the event and only in the event of a Characteristic Test or a Leadership Test (in which substitute the LD of a character for that of another model in the unit/for that of the whole unit) so broadly that you end up trying to make up a sentence of 6th edition rules that does not exist anywhere in the book. Case in point:

 

I have a rule that says use the highest leadership of the unit.

 

Nope; for the millionth time, you don't, and neither does anyone else. If you could FIND one somewhere in the book the rest of us haven't found yet, you could resolve this for us.

 

The two rules you ACTUALLY have are:

 

"A model will sometimes be called upon to take a characteristic test...To take a characteristic test, use the following procedure:...[sub-bullet for resolving Characteristic Tests] When a single [characteristic] test is required for the whole unit, use the highest relevant characteristic in the unit." (Pg 7)

 

and

 

"At certain times, a model or unit might be called upon to take a Leadership test...To take a leadership test, use the following procedure:...[sub-bullet for resolving Leadership Tests] If a unit includes models with different leadership values, always use the highest Leadership from among them." (Pg 7).

[thade]

So your argument is "We don't have a specific rule that addresses this..." and thus, what? What is your solution? Is it really important to you to spell out that the wording in the 6th Ed. of this game (which is known to have dodgey writing in their rule-sets) is dodgey? What shall we do in the meantime?

 

RAW has it's limits. Show us where in the rules that it states clearly "For a given roll of the dice, use the value on the top of the dice - once it's done rolling - to determine the value that dice represents." It doesn't state that clearly. It didn't in 5th either. What did we do? Did we panic? Did we post to the OR board saying "Look, a hole!" No, actually. We made the simplest assumption and just rolled with it...which is what the rules writers assume we'll so when this kind of thing comes up.

 

See "The Spirit of the Game" and "The Most Important Rule". And use your highest Ld for the check. The rest of us are going to do just that.