Pandamonium (Tzeentch lore spell)

[logan054]

While this spell remains in play, the army may not benefit from the leadership of their characters

I really can't see what part of the wording is causing any confusion.

[AntaresCD]

Thanks. Yeah, seems fairly straight forward. Anytime a character's leadership would provide a bonus (i.e. a benefit) it doesn't. I believe that a character by itself is fine (uses its own Leadership, it's not a bonus, it's its baseline) but the only conflict I can see that isn't easily resolvable is a unit made entirely of 2+ characters with at least 2 Leadership values represented.

[hamsterwheel]

Thanks. Yeah, seems fairly straight forward. Anytime a character's leadership would provide a bonus (i.e. a benefit) it doesn't. I believe that a character by itself is fine (uses its own Leadership, it's not a bonus, it's its baseline) but the only conflict I can see that isn't easily resolvable is a unit made entirely of 2+ characters with at least 2 Leadership values represented.

Even that wouldn't be too much of an issue. In a unit comprised entirely out of characters you would use the lowest leadership as to use any other would be benefiting from a character's leadership.

Also for the person mentioning the crown of command earlier in the thread. Even though you can't use the character's leadership, the unit is still stubborn.

[Harwammer]

the BRB it states that a 1 always fails to wound, the flaming sword gives you +1 to wound so if your S5 vs T3 then you automatically wound, this is also covered in the faq, its not a errata, its simply "does this spell override the basic rules of the game" answer "yes it does"

This argument is not valid. A dice roll includes it's modifiers (unless the rules wants a 'natural roll', which in this example is not the case). If the dice shows '1' and you have a +1 modifer you have rolled a two (1+1=2).

[AntaresCD]

Even that wouldn't be too much of an issue. In a unit comprised entirely out of characters you would use the lowest leadership as to use any other would be benefiting from a character's leadership.

Good point; that would follow. With that in mind, I can't think of a circumstance off the top of my head not easily handled then.

[logan054]

This argument is not valid. A dice roll includes it's modifiers (unless the rules wants a 'natural roll', which in this example is not the case). If the dice shows '1' and you have a +1 modifer you have rolled a two (1+1=2).

No, ok, how about this one then?

While this spell remains in play, the army may not benefit from the leadership of their characters

is that a valid one? thats a direct quote of the wording of the spell.

Even that wouldn't be too much of an issue. In a unit comprised entirely out of characters you would use the lowest leadership as to use any other would be benefiting from a character's leadership

Strictly speaking a unit of characters they can't use anyone's leadership because you create the circle of each not be permitted from using the other's, it's simpler to say use he lowest leadership.

[Lord Zarkov]

Strictly speaking a unit of characters they can't use anyone's leadership because you create the circle of each not be permitted from using the other's, it's simpler to say use he lowest leadership.

You're not permitted to 'benefit' from characters Ld, not 'use'.

A Ld 9 Character in a unit with a Ld 8 Character using the Ld 8 Characters Ld is not benefiting, since it would normally test on Ld 9 it's suffering a penalty.

Basically Pandemonium is as follows:
- Non Character units use their own Ld; ignoring the Character, who is then bound by the unit's result.
- Units of Characters use the lowest Ld so nobody 'benefits' from another character's Ld

With regards to why it's not 'use the lowest', it means that a unit with a lower Ld character in it does not use the lower Ld.

[logan054]

You're not permitted to 'benefit' from characters Ld, not 'use'.

A Ld 9 Character in a unit with a Ld 8 Character using the Ld 8 Characters Ld is not benefiting, since it would normally test on Ld 9 it's suffering a penalty.

Of course any character within a unit is benefiting from the leadership other another if the army is excluded from using any of the characters leadership, if you want to get technical are they not part of the army? we can have this really silly debate of twisting the english language or you can read my entire sentence trust me, if you really wanted to you could argue it either way (if you so desire), of course clearly I wouldn't argue it this way as my post very clearly mentions.

[Moss]

Pandemonium will probably be errata'd to say inspiring Presence as I think that was the intent.

The spell was already errata'd, but GW thought the wording on this part of the effect was just fine.