PDA

View Full Version : Banshee Howl -vs- Skaven Strength in Numbers



goatfarmer03
19-06-2009, 13:54
In The VC Book for the Banshee Howl you Roll 2D6+2, and compare that to the units leadership to find out how many wounds they take. It says "Use the Highest Leadership Value (including a leading Characters, General within 12", etc)". In the Skaven book it says they "always add their current Rank bonus to their Leadership Value for any Leadership Based test".
It hasn't come up yet in the games, but I was just curious what the correct rule usage is, before we get to the issue. Do you add Skavens rank to the Leadership the Banshee rolls against or not?

thanks
-goat

Necromancy Black
19-06-2009, 14:04
If the Skaven add the value to leadership test they would get no advantige as the Banshee Howl is not a leadership test. This is the same reason why you can't use Cold Blooded against the banshee howl.

If the wording says add the ranks to their leadership in general, then they would get the extra leadership. I'm not familiar with the exact wording of the Skaven rule.

Gokamok
19-06-2009, 14:04
At the latest UK GT, it was ruled that Skaven units add the benefit from Strength in Numbers when counting wounds suffered from Banshee screams, which I guess counts as a precedent that you always add/deduct any available modifiers to the target units Ld.

Necromancy Black
19-06-2009, 14:06
At the latest UK GT, it was ruled that Skaven units add the benefit from Strength in Numbers when counting wounds suffered from Banshee screams, which I guess counts as a precedent that you always add/deduct any available modifiers to the target units Ld.

That only works if the Strength in Numbers adds to the unit's leadership and not to leadership test's. It's a huge difference.

Gokamok
19-06-2009, 14:11
That only works if the Strength in Numbers adds to the unit's leadership and not to leadership test's. It's a huge difference.

True. Anyways, that's how GW ruled it, but if the wording of the SiN rule is exactly as the OP has presented it, then said ruling is definitely in conflict with RAW. Gotta love GW:rolleyes:

moose
19-06-2009, 14:29
That only works if the Strength in Numbers adds to the unit's leadership and not to leadership test's. It's a huge difference.

Erm,

Don't you use your leadership for leadership based tests then?

If a units leadership is 5 + 3 ranks = 8.

You will use this for their leadership test, as it is their leadership per strength in numbers.

And as goatfarmer03 said;
"always add their current Rank bonus to their Leadership Value for any Leadership Based test"

That's leadership based test, which this is.


Moose.

Atrahasis
19-06-2009, 14:32
No, this isn't a test at all.

However, the apparent intent is that SiN should apply.

moose
19-06-2009, 14:54
This is a test...just because it doesn't use the word test doesn't mean it isn't one.

It's like saying an exam is not a test.

Common sense will one day be a downloadable patch into the brain of all gamers :).


Moose.

TheDarkDaff
19-06-2009, 15:06
This is a test...just because it doesn't use the word test doesn't mean it isn't one.

It's like saying an exam is not a test.

Common sense will one day be a downloadable patch into the brain of all gamers :).


Moose.

So rolling to hit and wound are also tests.

More importantly what would you consider the units "current rank bonus" to actually be as it is only ever defined in the combat phase. The number of ranks 5 or more wide at the start of combat or are you using an imaginary and undefined term?

moose
19-06-2009, 15:18
I suppose so.

Can he hit him?
*Rolls dice*
Yes

Can he wound him?
*Rolls dice*
Yes

Not that there'd be any rules implications for your question.


Moose.

EDIT: Second question

Of course you add each rank for the rank bonus when not in combat. In combat you get +1 combat res for each rank, when youre not in combat you can't generate combat res...but you still have the rank/rank bonus.

EvC
19-06-2009, 15:40
Well done moose, you have just argued that a Chaos character with Necrotic Phylactery is immune to being hit or wounded, as he passes all tests (except for Leadership ;) ). Tests are actually defined nicely in the rulebook, and rolling to hit, wound, or screaming like a madwoman are not tests, as per the rulebook. Nor is being stabbed in the face, incidentally.

But Skaven get SiN against Banshees anyway, as RAW has its limits ;)

Shamfrit
19-06-2009, 15:49
Lol, did we just try and argue SiN doesn't work outside of combat?

Oh I lol, I truly do.

rtunian
19-06-2009, 15:53
general characteristic tests and leadership tests are very clearly defined on page 5.
a banshee howl is not a leadership test.

further, any characteristic test is made by the affected unit, not by the affecting unit. if you attack another unit, you do not make that unit's test. that unit makes its own test. therefore, it's ridiculous to state that a banshee howl is the vampire counts player making a leadership test for the skaven player. it doesn't even look right in a sentence, that's how wrong this assumption is.

a roll to hit is not a test, nor is a roll to wound. nor is a ward save roll. while you can create a sentence that uses the word "test" to describe rolls to hit/wound/etc, this is using the common definition of the word "test". the wfb definition of the word test depends on the context given, and is either "roll 2d6 and compare to leadership" or "roll d6 and compare to characteristic". these are the only acceptable definitions.

gw rules judge at a gt awarding skaven player the leadership bonus of sin against howl is either:
a) a mistake in the ruling
b) a mistake in the rule itself, which should have applied the leadership bonus more broadly

i give either 50/50 odds :p

Necromancy Black
20-06-2009, 00:05
This is a test...just because it doesn't use the word test doesn't mean it isn't one.

If this is a test, which in no way does Banshee Howl say it is, then I want Cold Blooded against it :p

But no, it's not a test at all. For a simple start, all tests are rolled by the player that controls the model being tested, which isn't the case with Banshees Howl.

Honestly, I'd ignore that stupid GT ruling until they but it up in an FAQ for all to see.

Kevlar
20-06-2009, 02:54
If this is a test, which in no way does Banshee Howl say it is, then I want Cold Blooded against it :p

But no, it's not a test at all. For a simple start, all tests are rolled by the player that controls the model being tested, which isn't the case with Banshees Howl.

Honestly, I'd ignore that stupid GT ruling until they but it up in an FAQ for all to see.

Cold blooded does not modify the leadership attribute. Neither does stubborn or unbreakable. Strength in numbers adds directly to the leadership stat same as having a character in the unit or general within 12". As long as the Skaven aren't flanked or fleeing their leadership stat includes their close combat rank bonus. Its pretty clear cut in the rules even without an official games workshop tournament verifying it.

Necromancy Black
20-06-2009, 03:34
Hang on, I thought what we were discussing is that SiN adds to the leadership for any leadership based test, not that it changes the actual leadership.

That is a huge difference right there. It's the same as Cold Blooded which only works for leadership tests.

Basically, can someone confirm for me that the SiN rules adds to leadership based-test or just to the actual leadership?

this also affects TK with the casket of souls.

PeG
20-06-2009, 06:34
It is difficult to argue wording from outdated books. The problem is likely to go away in the near future with the new book. The book actually says that LD is modified for all leadership based tests ie not only for leadership tests and also not that leadership is modified.

On the other hand the book also says a lot of other things such as for example that weapon teams cant be targeted. I think you either have to apply common sense and interpret the rules with respect to 7th ed rules and in that scenario I would allow SiN for Banshee howl, casket and other things or you make a strict interpretation what is written in the book ie no SiN but then I would also argue that the common ruling from GW is that army books > rule book which would mean that it should not be possible to target weapon teams. Although new> old this can be argued to only apply to a new version of the rules book or a new version of a specific FAQ etc.

I would allow SiN for Banshee and I would also interpret the rules as that weapon teams can be targeted.

Milgram
20-06-2009, 08:21
uhm... SiN was not outdated when that issue first appeared. e.g. it never worked against the TK casket. so it is not a 6th/7th thing and you can't 'misinterprete' it between the editions. the weaponteams is another story. there it is the same as with the BoC ranks. when an armybook makes references to a rule in the BRB and that rule changes or disappears... tough luck. but different story. :)

(BoC ranks is a bad example, I know. BoC has no reference to the BRB which probably would have helped in that case. :))

Ganymede
20-06-2009, 13:58
Tests are actually defined nicely in the rulebook,


This is actually a common misconception. The rulebook neatly defines Characteristic Tests and Leadership tests. It does not define tests in general nor does it specifically define Leadership Based Tests.

On the other hand, we can glean a satisfying answer from the context of several FAQ answers given to us by GW.


Basically, can someone confirm for me that the SiN rules adds to leadership based-test or just to the actual leadership?

I'll do you one better; I'll actually tell you what "leadership based test" means.

First, consider that one may apply the general's leadership in all of the exact same instances that a skaven may apply strength in numbers. Both abilities have the exact same wording and add to leadership for leadership based tests. Basically, if you are in a situation where you can use the general's leadership as your own (and it isn't an explicit exception) then you can also use the leadership bonus from strength in numbers.

Next, take a look at this particular FAQ answer from GW.

Q. Can you use the general’s Ld (if in 12" range) when
determining the number of wounds from the Casket?
A. Yes. For all purposes, a unit’s Ld is equal to the
general’s if he’s in 12" range.

This particular answer tells us that we can use the general's leadership for all purposes. Since the rulebook tells us that we only use the general's leadership for leadership based tests, we can only assume that "leadership based tests" and "for all purposes" have the same meaning in this game. In other words, any die roll, event, or test in the game which the modified leadership would make a direct difference is a leadership based test.

Finally, since the general's leadership bonus uses the exact same mechanic as strength in numbers, we can presume that they work in the same way in this instance too.

Shamfrit
20-06-2009, 14:10
This really is THAT simple: Banshee Scream = roll 2d6 +2, subtract the target's Leadership, that's how many wounds are dealt.

If the target is a unit of Clanrats, with a base LD of 5, with 3 full ranks, it'd have LD8 - therefore, the Banshee Scream is 2d6 +2 - 8.

SiN is a static ability, it always modifies Leadership by rank bonus, it works exactly like Mob Rules for Orks.

PeG
20-06-2009, 14:56
Case closed, thanks Ganymede.

EvC
20-06-2009, 15:11
I would like to confirm Ganymede's post for myself, to see if the rulebook really does say units use the general's leadership for "leadership based tests", but unfortunately my rulebook has been pilfered :cries:

I shall of course take his word for it however, since he's not one for pulling rulebook quotes out of his rear (A common hobby in this forum!). Interestingly, this would mean that Doom and Darkness does work in conjunction with the Banshee's howl after all... which would be quite tasty.

stripsteak
20-06-2009, 19:03
for EvC i'll confirm Ganymede. pg 82 the general's leadership section does only mention using the generals leadership for 'Leadership-based tests"

Necromancy Black
20-06-2009, 22:50
The TK FAQ goes against RAW in the book. It basically adds a new rule to the book (should really have done an erreta)

And even though we can assume that the targeted unit of skaven has the exact same leadership value as the general, this does not in any way change teh fact that SiN works for leadership based test.

This is not a "test", it's a leadership based test. That what the rule says. RAW is clear, SiN only works for leadership tests, so it won't have affect against Banshee Howl or Casket of Souls.

By all means use the general Ld, that part is clear as the rules for Banshee Howl say to do that. But as it's not a Ld test SiN doesn't come into play.

Doesn't even make sense that rats suddenly have a higher degree of will against a magical voice of death just because there's more of them.

Kevlar
20-06-2009, 23:13
Doesn't even make sense that rats suddenly have a higher degree of will against a magical voice of death just because there's more of them.

Uh actually it makes perfect sense because that is what the strength in numbers rule is all about. It gives them backbone.

Ganymede
20-06-2009, 23:14
The TK FAQ goes against RAW in the book. It basically adds a new rule to the book (should really have done an erreta)

And even though we can assume that the targeted unit of skaven has the exact same leadership value as the general, this does not in any way change teh fact that SiN works for leadership based test.

This is not a "test", it's a leadership based test. That what the rule says. RAW is clear, SiN only works for leadership tests, so it won't have affect against Banshee Howl or Casket of Souls.

By all means use the general Ld, that part is clear as the rules for Banshee Howl say to do that. But as it's not a Ld test SiN doesn't come into play.

Doesn't even make sense that rats suddenly have a higher degree of will against a magical voice of death just because there's more of them.


Who here is claiming that the banshee's howl is a leadership test? I'm not and no one else in this particular thread is doing so.

Take another look at the skaven special rules. SiN very clearly works against all "leadership based tests" and not just leadership tests as you claim. Like I already pointed out, it works in all the same instances that the general's leadership works as they both have identical wording.

Necromancy Black
20-06-2009, 23:42
Take another look at the skaven special rules. SiN very clearly works against all "leadership based tests" and not just leadership tests as you claim. Like I already pointed out, it works in all the same instances that the general's leadership works as they both have identical wording.

And yet the Banshee Howls says that you may apply the general's leadership, this is a clear acception to the rule that's been stated. No such thign exists for SiN.

Banshee Howl is not in any way shape or form a "Leadership based test", so SiN, unless state to apply to it, does not work.

Ganymede
20-06-2009, 23:55
And yet the Banshee Howls says that you may apply the general's leadership, this is a clear acception to the rule that's been stated. No such thign exists for SiN.

This is circumstantial evidence at best and just idle supposition at worst.

Consider a similar example in the original 6th edition Dark Elf Armybook, specifically the profiles for the assassin and the beastmaster. Both of these character types were forbidden from wearing magical armor due to the special rules for magic items. On the other hand, the assassin mentioned specifically that it was not allowed to wear magic armor while the beastmaster had no such specific note. Would we then conclude that the beastmaster actually was allowed to wear magic armor because of the lack of this specific disallowance? Of course not.

Additionally, you have no way of knowing whether or not this is truly an exception. GW frequently gives reminders within its rules. It is likely that GW was simply reminding us that, according to its rules, the general's leadership works against the scream. Strength in Numbers, being a very specific ability found only in a single armybook, probably wouldn't warrant such a reminder.

Lastly, even if this mention of the general's leadership working was not simply a reminder, it still does not negate the reasoning posited in my original post. According to GW's previous faq answers, it is pretty clear that a leadership based test is any instance in which an improved/reduced leadership score would matter. Such a mentioning may be an exception, but it is an exception that is largely redundant due to previous precedents.





Banshee Howl is not in any way shape or form a "Leadership based test", so SiN, unless state to apply to it, does not work.

Prove it.

Shamfrit
21-06-2009, 00:02
A test is a check of one value against another; when you roll for the Banshee Scream, you are testing against a specific value, that of the leadership stat of the target - which, with SiN, is Base LD + Rank.

I'm actually surprised, as me and Ganymede have clashed alot in the past, but he is dead on the money this time.

Ganymede
21-06-2009, 00:04
I'm actually surprised, as me and Ganymede have clashed alot in the past, but he is dead on the money this time.

Don't worry, we will have our Ragnarok one day soon.

(As an aside, I don't really remember any sort of clash.)

Milgram
21-06-2009, 09:24
This is circumstantial evidence at best and just idle supposition at worst.

uhm... and where is the 'evidence' that only because you can use the generals leadership for any purposes, you also can use SiN for any purposes? simple logic applied to the rule will tell you that it does not work. simple logic applied to the faq entry will tell you that the faq has nothing to do with SiN.



A test is a check of one value against another; when you roll for the Banshee Scream, you are testing against a specific value, that of the leadership stat of the target - which, with SiN, is Base LD + Rank.


tests are defined on page 5. we have no diversification between a leadership test and a leadership based test. but reading the rules it is safe to assume, that all tests are made by the unit itself - because it tells us exactly that for every defined test, including the regular leadership test.

the banshee howl is not a test - it is an attack. should SiN work fluffwise? maybe. should it work RAI? possible, though they'd probably brought it up in an FAQ. does it work RAW? no.

Necromancy Black
21-06-2009, 11:18
the banshee howl is not a test - it is an attack. should SiN work fluffwise? maybe. should it work RAI? possible, though they'd probably brought it up in an FAQ. does it work RAW? no.

Bingo. This is not a test in anyway. It's the same as saying a roll to wound is a test, which it isn't in what warhammer defines as a test.

xragg
21-06-2009, 12:02
Anyone not letting skaven use SiN for bansee howl, is really looking for ways to hose their opponents. Like quoted, skaven are allowed to use SiN against the casket, which is the same game mechanic as the howl.

Ultimate Life Form
21-06-2009, 12:08
To strengthen Necro's position (and because I feel like putting myself in the line of fire), I have to confirm that Banshee's Howl isn't a Ld test. Otherwise, it would say "take a Ld test", D'oh! Now it all depends if the Skaven rule adds the ranks to the Ld VALUE or the Ld TEST.

In this game, sometimes, you end up with weird results and I'm constantly surprised apparent veterans still have trouble putting up with it. It reminds me of the "Night Goblin nets vs Ethereals" threads. Sadly, a fluffwise interpretation often doesn't stand up to what the rules say. Even though I admit the SiN rule SHOULD help against the Banshee, it doesn't help if the rules say otherwise.

As for the Casket of Souls, it obviously goes directly against RAW and thereby overrides the original rule, being somewhat illegal in itself as usual (that's why I never bother with FAQ's). If you must take it in consideration, its ruling only applies to TK Casket and nothing else and certainly not VC and cannot be taken as absolute truth.

Gazak Blacktoof
21-06-2009, 12:19
I agree with Ganymede's positions as outlined in post #19. It seems clear that you can use SiN at any point that you can use the general's leadership- the wording for when they are triggered is the same.

As Necromancy Black said in post #27 the Banshee Howl states that you can use the generals leadership- I see no reason not to allow another rule with the same wording to also be used.

Shamfrit
21-06-2009, 12:29
You're all focussing on 'to their leadership value for any leadership based test,' and excluding the second paragraph of the SiN rule:

'First work out the Leadership of the unit as normal (character in the unit, General within 12", magic bonus/penalties etc...'

When you trigger the Banshee Scream, you need to determine what the leadership of the target is before you roll - you do this by adding rank bonus and determining if the general is in range - you do not override SiN by it not being a leadership test based on very fragmented and spurious definitions.

It also states the general's leadership is conferred and THEN you modify by the unit's current rank bonus - it is gob-smackingly clear that SiN works vs/ the Banshee scream.

Necromancy Black
21-06-2009, 12:44
That fine Shamfrit, add the general's leadership value to the unit, then if it's a leadership based test, add the rank bonus.

The first part if perfect fine, the second part doesn't apply as it's not a leadership based test.

Also why on earth does SiN apply against the casket of souls? Who said that?

Ultimate Life Form
21-06-2009, 12:50
Also why on earth does SiN apply against the casket of souls? Who said that?

Whoops, my mistake. I mixed a few things up in this heated discussion. And with this not being my first language... well, pay it no heed. Even better.

Shamfrit
21-06-2009, 12:55
You can't test on the general's leadership if it's not a leadership based test...

You can't have one without the other - if you can have the General's LD, then you can have SiN too|!

Necromancy Black
21-06-2009, 12:56
Ah ok then, that really had me confused.

@Gazak Blacktoof: the only situations I'm saying you can't use SiN where you can use the general's leadership are the Casket of Souls and Banshee's Howl.

What do both of these have in common? Somewhere there is a rule that makes an exception and allows you to to use the general's leadership even though this is not a leadership based test. With no exception for SiN I see no reason to allow it. It's clearly not RAW (though the CoS ruling in the FAQ is pretty much the same. But what would a GW FAQ be without a few answers that raise more questions?)


You can't test on the general's leadership if it's not a leadership based test...

You can't have one without the other - if you can have the General's LD, then you can have SiN too|!

Except Banshee's Howl and Casket of Souls have exceptions to allow teh general's leadership, that's part of the rules. Nothings says SiN has can be used as well!

Shamfrit
21-06-2009, 13:18
That has about as much clout as the 'is the banshee scream a ranged attack' discussion I got into with EvC one game - I guess it doesn't really matter - if that's how you play it Necro, play it - not a single Skaven player being scream-raped will agree with you. We pay through the nose to have SiN - a Clanrat's base leadership is NOT 5 - it is 8, with the option of being autobroken if flanked if numbers fall.

Ultimate Life Form
21-06-2009, 13:21
Just out of curiosity, is it a ranged attack or not?;)

Necromancy Black
21-06-2009, 13:26
Just out of curiosity, is it a ranged attack or not?;)

It would help a lot if range attack had a set definition.

@shamfrit: The rules for SiN are clear. It applies to leadership based test. If you or any skaven player can prove that the Banshee's Howl is a leadership base test then you are right.
If it is a leadership based test, then the VC player will ahve to roll 3 dice and drop the highest against Lizardmen, because that is what happens for all leadership based test for Lizardmen.

Gazak Blacktoof
21-06-2009, 13:29
I think its likely that SiN isn't noted in the banshee rules because its army book specific and might change with a revision.

If a note is provided regarding one rule I think its a bit silly to not apply that same note to other functionally identical rules, particularly when taking into account the "just get on with it" attitude of the studio and the most important rule.

A clearer version of the rule might say-

"Roll 2D6+2 and deduct the unitís Leadership (including any modifiers that might be applied to a leadership based test) from the total."

That would then cover the general's leadership radius, SiN and any other direct modifier to the leadership characteristic you care to mention.

Bac5665
21-06-2009, 16:07
I will simply posit that a LD based test and a LD test are the same thing. GW is simply not precise enough to assume otherwise. Go look at the 7E dwarf book. GW doesn't even tell you that the Grudge Thrower is a warhmacine, let alone a stone thrower, at least not in the army list section. GW simply doesn't stnadardize its terms and formats enough to nitpick that these two tests are different, when its fairly clear they are the same thing.

Milgram
21-06-2009, 16:36
the TK FAQ only refers to the generals LD and brings an exception that contradicts the rules. you would need a second exception for the SiN - which there is not.

Ganymede
21-06-2009, 17:04
the TK FAQ only refers to the generals LD and brings an exception that contradicts the rules. you would need a second exception for the SiN - which there is not.

This is no more than a wild guess on your part. You have absolutely no reason to believe that it is an exception, and some pretty compelling reasons to believe it is not.

The purpose of Q&As are to clarify existing rules, not to make new rules. Sure, GW is occasionally guilty of a slipup in this department, but such a notion doesn't change their stated purpose and vast trend as a resource for rules clarification.

If you assume that the TK FAQ changed the rules to add an exception into the Casket, then you must also assume that GW is wrong to even put it there, and they made a big mistake in doing so. At that point, you're simply playing favorites with GW's errors.

Ganymede
21-06-2009, 17:21
The rules for SiN are clear. It applies to leadership based test. If you or any skaven player can prove that the Banshee's Howl is a leadership base test then you are right.
If it is a leadership based test, then the VC player will ahve to roll 3 dice and drop the highest against Lizardmen, because that is what happens for all leadership based test for Lizardmen.

First off, why do you assume we are Skaven players?

Secondly, the burden of proof is not on us. I've already put forth a lucid and detailed argument on how abilities such as the Casket of Souls' attack could be considered a leadership absed test. You keep talking as if you know what 'leadership based test' means, but you have yet to put forward any evidence or argument of your own at all.

Lastly, I advise you to reread your Lizardmen book. It does not say what you think it says. Your claim that their cold blooded ability works against all leadership based tests is patently false.

Shamfrit
21-06-2009, 17:30
Exactly Ganymede, Cold Blooded means the Lizardmen player rolls all Leadership tests he is required to make on 3 dice, removing the highest. Teh Banshee scream is the Vampire's priority, and is rolled off against the static leadership (8 for Saurus etc).

SiN on the other hand is a modifier applied to ALL leadership based/leadership tests - it is not conditional on who has priority.

EDIT: Find ANY example of 'leadership based test' elsewhere in the game.

Ganymede
21-06-2009, 17:55
Exactly Ganymede, Cold Blooded means the Lizardmen player rolls all Leadership tests he is required to make on 3 dice, removing the highest. Teh Banshee scream is the Vampire's priority, and is rolled off against the static leadership (8 for Saurus etc).

SiN on the other hand is a modifier applied to ALL leadership based/leadership tests - it is not conditional on who has priority.

EDIT: Find ANY example of 'leadership based test' elsewhere in the game.

Well the distinction I was pointing out was that cold blooded only works on leadership tests (which the casket of souls clearly isn't) while SiN and the general's leadership works on leadership based tests (which the casket likely is).

Another example of a likely leadership based test is the die roll required by the Wood Elves' Spirit Sword.

stripsteak
21-06-2009, 19:36
first Lizardman only get their cold-blooded for 'leadership tests' not leadership-based tests so there is no point in bringing them up as their rule is different.

The BRB only defines 'Characteristic Tests' and 'Leadership Tests' it never defines what a 'test' is so we have to use it's definition. 'Leadership-based tests' are never mentioned in either of these section, and only mentioned during general's leadership SiN and a few other specific locations(doom and darkness was the only other place i found on a quick look). If they were the same thing there would be no point changing the wording in specific locations. And since we have no definition of leadership-based tests as as being a specific kind of test it must be taken at face value. A test is simply defined:
test
1  /tɛst/ Show Spelled [test] Show IPA
–noun
1.the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.
2.the trial of the quality of something: to put to the test.
3.a particular process or method for trying or assessing

So a leadership-based test would be a means of which something is assessed based on a leadership characteristic. the banshee howl is definitely determining something based on the leadership characters, particularly how many wounds are caused.
all 'Leadership tests' are 'leadership-based tests'
not all 'leadership-based tests' are 'leadership tests'

cold-blooded - leadership test
SiN - Leadership-based test
General's Ld - Leadership-based test
Doom & Darkness - Leadership-based test
couldn't find any other locations where leadership-based test is mentioned.

Kevlar
22-06-2009, 00:57
I don't know why 20 people keep arguing with the same guy. This answer was pretty obvious from the start, and answered definitively when we got a ruling from an official GW tournament.

xragg
22-06-2009, 03:16
I don't know why 20 people keep arguing with the same guy. This answer was pretty obvious from the start, and answered definitively when we got a ruling from an official GW tournament.

Necro's argument definately has merit. He isnt wrong for arguing what he is, but most people in this thread can see (or at least feel) many indicators point towards skaven being allowed to use their SiN. Like I mentioned before, not allowing skaven to use SiN in this case with all the indicators is almost like looking for ways to handicap your opponent.

riotknight
22-06-2009, 05:51
Wait.... Why is a VC player confused about this rule?

For the record, the GW i play at, indeed, all the GW's in the area I've played at have always allowed SiN to be used against the scream. Argue it as much as you like. But sadly that will always be the case.

Secondly, Why is a VC player losing to Skaven?

Milgram
22-06-2009, 09:47
the banshee howl is not a test - it is an attack. should SiN work fluffwise? maybe. should it work RAI? possible, though they'd probably brought it up in an FAQ. does it work RAW? no.

you make me quote myself.

it is allowed in most GW stores somewhere because it is the friendly way to do it. heck, even I would allow any skaven player to do it. but it is not RAW period. some GW employees don't know the basic rules. do you really want to base your argument on their opinion?

some blueshirt ruling on a GT does not give you a precedent to cite as authority. what would you do if he stumbles over a rule and allowed the giant to stand up in the enemy movement phase? would you come here and say 'GT ruling is blablub', because he made a mistake or decided on his gut feeling? there are other GT rulings, that are not strictly RAW as well, should we all use them as RAW or just as indications for houserules?

as far as I'm concerned, my arguments and most of the other arguments that restrains SiN from being used against banshee howl (RAW-wise) have not been disproven. in the same time, the arguments pro SiN have not been validated and are mostly based on non-official rulings, opinions and an FAQ that says nothing about SiN. so, yes, I think the burden of proof lies in the hands of the pro-side - or at least the burden of invalidation of the anti-SiN arguments.

BTW: FAQ is full of 'new rules' and 'exceptions' like the GW/ASF ruling where it was only wishlisting and no one expected the final entry in the FAQ.

@kevlar: I don't know why we kept arguing with you on the ethereal thing. how many supporters have you had there while still arguing with comon sense?



Secondly, Why is a VC player losing to Skaven?

now that is a good question. I'd guess first turn, WLC, dead general. :D

Gazak Blacktoof
22-06-2009, 09:59
even I would allow any skaven player to do it. but it is not RAW period.

If you're playing devil's advocate that's fine but at some point all you're doing is practising your debating skills.

The only reason to have this discussion is to decide how to interpret the rules in a game and if everybody agrees one way to play the game the reason for their decision is unimportant.

This thread appears to have run its course.

Milgram
22-06-2009, 10:26
this is not a discussion wheter or not akito restrictions should be applied on a tournament or not. it is not a 'softfactors' debate. it is in the rules forum and therefore we discuss, how it should be handled RAW. you want a discussion about RAI and house rules? that's fine, but the RAW discussion isn't going to be solved by that. people don't come to the rules forum to see 'how it can be handled', because they already discussed that during the game, rolled 4+ and applied the result according to the MIR. they come here afterwards to clarify the rules. the OP did not ask 'how do you handle this?' but 'how is it?'.

I think everyone can agree when we say 'we suggest that the skaven player should be allowed to use SiN against casket and banshee howl, either as a house rule if it is not RAW or as RAW, if it is RAW' - especially as skaven are slightly underpowered these days. at least compared to VC.

can we now go back to the RAW discussion or do you agree, that RAW they cannot use it? :)

Gazak Blacktoof
22-06-2009, 10:45
Well at the moment we've seemingly got two interpretations of "how it works" and the thread is on page 3. With most of these debates if there isn't a consensus on RAW by the end of the second page there probably wont be one *ever*. Sometimes the result of a thread is to ignore RAW anyway- for example auto breaking from a unit of mixed fear causing and non-fear causing models.


At this point point in the thread its not about RAW or RAI but how you would play it. Most gamers simply want to get through a game without a protracted debate. To that end the rules are there to provide a framework so that there are as few issues as possible. With an awkward rule if there's a consensus on how it should be played that's as good as it ever gets.

I'll leave you to it.

The Red Scourge
22-06-2009, 11:18
Ld tests are quite clearly defined as rolling below a units Ld using 2 d6. Look it up in your BRB.

In the same way, the Doom & Darkness spell doesn't combine with the Banshee, as it isn't an Ld test.

You can't dispute this, as this is one of the rare instances where GW has quite clearly defined their rule and terms.

You are of course very velcome to argue the sense in the rule, and create your own house rules to better suit your game, but the rules as written are quite clear :)

Ganymede
22-06-2009, 11:34
as far as I'm concerned, my arguments and most of the other arguments that restrains SiN from being used against banshee howl (RAW-wise) have not been disproven.

They don't need to be disproven. Any argument you build upon a foundation of RAW is flawed from the beginning as there is no RAW answer to this problem. The only way we could have a RAW answer is if the rulebook actually defined what "Leadership-based test" means. It doesn't. You won't find such an explicit definition anywhere in the rulebook.

You posit that the Light of Death is not a leadership-based test, but without having a definition of leadership-based test, all you are doing is taking a big fat guess.





BTW: FAQ is full of 'new rules' and 'exceptions' like the GW/ASF ruling where it was only wishlisting and no one expected the final entry in the FAQ.



Keep up to speed. We already addressed and debunked this particular line of reasoning.


The purpose of Q&As is to clarify existing rules, not to make new rules. Sure, GW is occasionally guilty of a slipup in this department, but such a notion doesn't change their stated purpose and vast trend as a resource for rules clarification.

If you assume that the TK FAQ changed the rules to add an exception into the Casket, then you must also assume that GW is wrong to even put it there, and they made a big mistake in doing so. At that point, you're simply playing favorites with GW's errors.

...


Ld tests are quite clearly defined as rolling below a units Ld using 2 d6. Look it up in your BRB.

In the same way, the Doom & Darkness spell doesn't combine with the Banshee, as it isn't an Ld test.

You can't dispute this, as this is one of the rare instances where GW has quite clearly defined their rule and terms.

You are of course very velcome to argue the sense in the rule, and create your own house rules to better suit your game, but the rules as written are quite clear :)

Reread the entire thread.

Milgram
22-06-2009, 11:57
a leadership based test is not the same as a leadership test, though a leadership test is a leadership based test. that is the whole pro-argumentation. though there is no other reference to what a test is than on pg 5 (or 8?).

Ganymede
22-06-2009, 12:03
While we can agree that a leadership test is probably a specific type of leadership-based test, that still doesn't get us any closer to a definition for leadership-based tests.

Kevlar
22-06-2009, 12:25
Well here is the issue debated on a Vampire Counts message board. Seems this is an old debate which has been answered countless times.

http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_Blood_Keep/index.php?showtopic=3807

Shamfrit
22-06-2009, 12:32
That Kevlar, is exactly what we needed, thank you ;)

Case closed?

EvC
22-06-2009, 12:44
...that thread no more clears up the issue than this thread does.

Kevlar
22-06-2009, 12:50
...that thread no more clears up the issue than this thread does.

It has quotes from two designers who wrote the two books, both say all leadership modifiers apply to casket and banshee.

Milgram
22-06-2009, 13:03
It has quotes from two designers...

... of which one has no source and the other one redirects me to the main page because I have GW UK as starting GW page and not US/Canada or wherever that Cavatore interview should be. I was personally told by our local shop that someone said he'd seen a link to a thread where gav wrote the opposite. but unfortunatelly I cannot prove.

EvC
22-06-2009, 13:52
Anyway, Alessio said: "For simplicity's sake I'd say that the Banshee Howl does indeed force a Ld-based test, so the Ld bonus should apply."

This is pretty much what I already said earlier- it's only for simplicity's sake that we say "Go on then, it makes sense", not because the rules actually say so. Also bear in mind this was several years ago, before the current VC book- and indeed, before 7th edition itself.

Still, I shall look forward to suggesting to people once again that "Doom and Darkness" can make the Banshee's scream more effective :)

Necromancy Black
22-06-2009, 14:29
Every reason put forth that SiN can apply to things like banshee's howl as they work as a leadership-based test (and not a leadership test) just gives equal reason for doom and darkness to work with it.

Both apply to any leadership-based test, so by RAW if one applies then why not the other?

Ganymede
22-06-2009, 16:53
Every reason put forth that SiN can apply to things like banshee's howl as they work as a leadership-based test (and not a leadership test) just gives equal reason for doom and darkness to work with it.

Both apply to any leadership-based test, so by RAW if one applies then why not the other?

I don't think anyone is arguing that one of these should work but the other shouldn't.

They both use the exact same language so they should both work.

Shamfrit
22-06-2009, 17:04
I also have no problem with Doom and Darkness combining with the Scream.

Necromancy Black
22-06-2009, 23:59
o_O

Right, this has now become two religions arguing over existence. This isn't going to ever be solved.