|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Sept 24, 2017 13:27:12 GMT
For me I found it strange people think a better leader would follow a lesser one regarding fluff. Is it impossible to run those chars together in skaven? Is Queek bad? Leadership was a poor choice of word for the stat. The way it plays (break checks, panic, and fear) means it works more like bravery. Oops, I just made an assumption 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Sept 24, 2017 13:31:19 GMT
- Selecting the General is NOT done at the end of the list: it is part of building your list (BRB p. 134 ff.). Indeed, it is listed as the first step of building your list. The ambiguity of the 6th edition was removed more than 10 years ago. It was open for interpretation before, but not since the 7th edition. I don't think this is necessarily the case. That list is not a sequence things should be done in as far as I am concerned. Are you suggesting you build a list in the order on that page? It would not make any sense and I do not think it says you must do so. I was about to say the same thing. Army building is not written as a step by step. When things need to be done step by step GW numbers them (go back to the Movement, Magic, Shooting and Close Combat rules) |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 14:23:43 GMT
FvonSigmaringen My example assumed nothing. I read the two rules and merely have an exterior example. This is often done in science to show how something works. Think of it as a model. The positioning of the BSB rule makes it an addendum to the general rule. Also, your arguments against interpretations are odd in that you make language immutable. This is most certainly not the case. Not to be crass, but the English word "fag" means something different in America than it does in England in the everyday vernacular. Also, when a word is used in a certain way definitions are often added to. This means that rules and laws are often open to a small amount of reasonable interpretation, and often are. Most of the above is completely irrelevant to the permissive system of game rules that Warhammer is. Indeed, exterior examples have no bearing whatsoever. And specific rules (like being General) in Warhammer do not suddenly become something different in another rules paragraph. Unless specified otherwise, normal rules apply. That is why they are the normal rules. You made this assumption: "Therefore he does not count as being the highest leadership for this purpose." However, that is an assumption that is no way shape of form follows from the actual rules. Show me somewhere in the rules that allows you to ignore the BSB's Leadership for the purpose of determining the General, and I'll be the first to say that your correct. |
|
|
|
Post by frozenfood on Sept 24, 2017 14:40:51 GMT
For me I found it strange people think a better leader would follow a lesser one regarding fluff. Is it impossible to run those chars together in skaven? Is Queek bad? Queek is fabulous and the only special character I have ever taken from the skaven book. It makes the stormvermin unit even more expensive but there are few units who can match this. Excluding elves of course, curse their pointy (r)ears. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 14:43:17 GMT
I don't think this is necessarily the case. That list is not a sequence things should be done in as far as I am concerned. Are you suggesting you build a list in the order on that page? It would not make any sense and I do not think it says you must do so. I did not say that it is a strict sequence. Obviously, you go back and forth when building the list. However, the fact that the BRB lists the General as the first step indicates the importance for building your list. At the end of the process, your Army List must fulfil all requirements, otherwise it is an illegal list. If your General is not the character in your Army with the highest Leadership, the List does not fulfil the requirements of the rule "General" and thus is illegal. To give an interior and thus relevant example. At various stages in building your AL, you may not have 25% Core. That is not a problem, as long as the end result fulfils the requirement of 25% core. If it does not, it is an illegal list. |
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Sept 24, 2017 15:00:08 GMT
FvonSigmaringen I feel that you run to the argument of irrelevant when someone brings up pieces you disagree with. My examples dealt with language, and the rules are written in a language. By saying the BSB cannot be the general I am not assuming he is ignored. It is implicit in that paragraph.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 24, 2017 15:29:16 GMT
FvonSigmaringen I feel that you run to the argument of irrelevant when someone brings up pieces you disagree with. My examples dealt with language, and the rules are written in a language. By saying the BSB cannot be the general I am not assuming he is ignored. It is implicit in that paragraph. I am sorry but that is not implicit in any language. Its an assumption  |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 15:34:00 GMT
@ avatarofbugman
What is the relevance of exterior examples to Warhammer rules? Ziltch.
What is the relevance of the fact that fag may mean different things to different people for the specific register of a game system? Ziltch.
To give another interior example: "Wizard" has a speficic meaning and function within the Warhammer system, just like "General." Whatever a Wizard may be exterior to the game is completely irrelevant. and whatever one may think a Wizard should or should not be in the game is irrelevant, unless it is based on the actual rules.
[Edit: While language is not immutable, the rules register of games does contain immutable language - otherwise you cannot play the game. Specific rules terms have specific and immutable meanings and functions, laid down by the rules. In Warhammer, such terms tend to be capitalised, like Large Target, Leadership, Wizard and, of course, General.]
I feel that people run irrelevant arguments when there are no rules to base their assumptions on. And so far, you have not provided any support based on the rules.
Here is the actual paragraph:
BRB p. 107: "A Battle Standard Bearer is a heroic model carrying a particularly impressive banner, and it will be presented as an option in your Warhammer Armies book. The battle standard is carried by a character model and, unless specified otherwise, the model that carries the battle standard cannot be the General."
It does not say, nor, indeed, imply to ignore his Leadership. On the contrary: the rules explictly state that the General is the character in your army with the highest Leadership. They also explicitly state that the BSB cannot be the General. Therefore, the BSB cannot be the character in your army with the highest Leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 24, 2017 15:37:42 GMT
Basic logic
A=B A=C => B=C
A!=B A!=C is not => B!=C that last is an assumption
|
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Sept 24, 2017 16:13:50 GMT
My last post for this one. My point was about language not being that immaleable. All of my examples were about that. I already read the rule, I own the book. Do not treat me and others that point out things as children.
You may not like it, but you are, in essence, assuming something even in your interpretation. Many have brought up sections in the rules as points, you merely disagreed. That is fine, but don't say I and others have not used anything in the rules as examples. That is just a fallacy.
I didn't formulate my statement all of a sudden. I read through all of the relevant rules and then drew a conclusion.
As to the whole mathematical logic argument you are forgetting about the ability to excluded from the set that you are using in the logic statement due to another set of parameters.
|
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Sept 24, 2017 16:23:35 GMT
My last post for this one. My point was about language not being that immaleable. All of my examples were about that. I already read the rule, I own the book. Do not treat me and others that point out things as children. You may not like it, but you are, in essence, assuming something even in your interpretation. Many have brought up sections in the rules as points, you merely disagreed. That is fine, but don't say I and others have not used anything in the rules as examples. That is just a fallacy. I didn't formulate my statement all of a sudden. I read through all of the relevant rules and then drew a conclusion. As to the whole mathematical logic argument you are forgetting about the ability to excluded from the set that you are using in the logic statement due to another set of parameters. Sorry didn’t mean that. Doing dice exercise with my 5 year old right now; 25 white lions against 21 chaos warriors. My son is killing me. Might have caught same teaching spirit!  I just love these discussions. Must have been tons of theses back in the days |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 16:27:18 GMT
Many have brought up sections in the rules as points, you merely disagreed. That is fine, but don't say I and others have not used anything in the rules as examples. That is just a fallacy. Whenever someone has brought up sections in the rules as points, I did not merely disagree: I consistently supported that with arguments, usually with quotes from the actual rules. I also am usually the first to point out potential counter-arguments. Everyone here can easliy verify that by reading this thread. The only argument you provided is that "The BSB cannot be the General" implies his Ld is ignored. That is just a fallacy. |
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Sept 24, 2017 16:40:56 GMT
At the end of the day it's another rule that isn't clearly written. I know you could argue that it is clear but if that were the case then this conversation wouldn't keep arising.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Sept 24, 2017 16:46:06 GMT
Why is it a fallacy when Ld can seemingly be ignored for certain models? There is a specific rule for BSB that they can not be generals in the same way other models are excluded from being a general. The general can only be selected to be general from the list of eligible characters.
By this reasoning any character with the "can't be general rule" would be unselectable if it had higher Ld than the general.
I think the way the rule is written it is unclear either way and nothing posted in this thread has convinced me 100% either way is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Sept 24, 2017 16:54:01 GMT
@ knoffles: Obviously, I have to disagree there. There are a number of Warhammer rules that are clearly written and still are disputed (e.g. Predatory Fighter). The fact that GW sometimes does write unclear rules is not a blank check to question any rule. As I said before, a rule does not become unclear, because it does not say what one thinks it should say. And in this particular case, the rule would indeed be unclear, if the BSB's Ld is to be ignored. But it is crystal clear, if it is not.
|
|
