| SiN with the FAQ, how does that work? | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 9th July 2010 - 08:25 PM (471 Views) | ||
| C57Black | 9th July 2010 - 08:25 PM Post #1 | |
|
Warlord
|
Can someone please walk me through how SiN works now with the FAQ update, the games workshop explination makes no sense to me what so ever. It seems in their exmaples like they are saying that SiN applies to ALL leaderhsip tests including unmodified ones, is that the way to read their cryptic mumbo jumbo? | |
![]() |
|
|
| SkavenDan | 9th July 2010 - 08:32 PM Post #2 | |
|
Doomwheel Fanatic
|
SIN affectively happens before modifications. so we get stubborn ld10 | |
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Ratemis | 9th July 2010 - 09:15 PM Post #3 | |
|
Made of 110% Skaven!
|
I think this has been explained the same way in several topics on here. | |
My Skaven Army, now with Testudorats!![]() " However, Bonebreakers have another mark against them now. Going up a hill can kill your warlord if you roll bad. Should call them Neckbreakers "Get down from there! You could fall and break your neck!"" | ||
![]() |
|
|
| C57Black | 9th July 2010 - 09:48 PM Post #4 | |
|
Warlord
|
I know about those threads but I was trying to find a straight answer without the other peripheral nonesnse included, the reason is because the way I read it our SiN is applied to all LD test including unmodified tests like those provoked through the Spirit leech spell, the Blade of realities, etc etc . I don't care about steadfast the FAQ clearly states that, but I was trying to figure if my general can test with a +7 or a +10 against Spirit leech Spam (something that people are already claiming will be a common tactic in warhammer). It also seems like this new wording of SiN replaces the old FAQ about Censors Bearers as now it seems they are stubborn on a 9 if near a unit of monks and a furance | |
![]() |
|
|
| SkavenDan | 9th July 2010 - 09:51 PM Post #5 | |
|
Doomwheel Fanatic
|
Well since it's the same wording I would say you characters can use ranks. | |
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| C57Black | 9th July 2010 - 09:54 PM Post #6 | |
|
Warlord
|
Thats what i was thinking Dan, because the wording for Steadfast includes the word "unmodified" yet you still get SiN per GW's example, I should still get my SiN for all LD rolls against Spirit Leech, Blade of Realities etc etc. At least thats how I plan to argue it. Anyone know if there are any problems arguing that? | |
![]() |
|
|
| SkavenDan | 9th July 2010 - 10:13 PM Post #7 | |
|
Doomwheel Fanatic
|
I will ask are gaming group what they think. But I will argue the case I like to argue show us your war face!
|
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Ratemis | 10th July 2010 - 12:00 AM Post #8 | |
|
Made of 110% Skaven!
|
That's because you need to read the whole section, not just Steadfast, to get the context. "Modified" is used in the section only to describe the "Modifier" to leadership from losing combat. It's used several times in the section and paragraph directly before the steadfast rule. The steadfast rule itself is a sub-section of the section covering the modifier from combat resolution. So when it says to use the "unmodified" leadership for taking the test from losing combat it's only talking about using the leadership without the leadership "modifier" from combat resolution. Only when the rules are taken out of context are they confusing. With the whole book around it, it's actually quite clear. SiN is quite clear because it's so general, you add rank bonus to all leadership tests. That's it, no exceptions given, no "But"s, "However"s or "Contrary"s in it. If they argue that context doesn't count, then go to your army list, point at the Abomination special rule "Too Horrible to die" and proclaim that it is unkillable based on the name of the rule, and that you won't flip to a few pages before it to read the description of the rule, because context is irrelevant. |
|
My Skaven Army, now with Testudorats!![]() " However, Bonebreakers have another mark against them now. Going up a hill can kill your warlord if you roll bad. Should call them Neckbreakers "Get down from there! You could fall and break your neck!"" | ||
![]() |
|
|
| C57Black | 10th July 2010 - 01:33 AM Post #9 | |
|
Warlord
|
Hmmmm, probably the best epxlination there is, thank you Ratemis. So does anyone no think that SiN would apply to things like Spirit leech? | |
![]() |
|
|
| Pestilent Lord | 10th July 2010 - 03:27 AM Post #10 | |
![]()
Doomwheel Driver
|
I really wish GW would find a way to say 'unmodified' that doesn't end up sounding like a synonym for 'unchanged'. Because on a quick read-through you would assume the two meant the same. But in GW terms, unmodified usually means 'unaffected by combat resolution' while the average person might assume unmodified means 'whatever the profile says it is.' Usually it doesn't matter, but when you get into things like Skaven SiN, or spells and items that mess with leadership stats it gets really confusing. If the average reader thinks unmodified means 'whatever the profile says' but the designers meant 'regardless of how bad you're losing this combat, but taking into account all the other changes to your LD' then you've got a bit of a disconnect between how the rules are meant to play and how they actually get played. |
|
|
“A player is never late, Dave. Nor is he early. He arrives precisely when the plot dictates he should.” Skaven 7th: W/L/D 6/5/2 High Elves: 2/3/1 | ||
![]() |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Skaven Discussion · Next Topic » |








