RexScarlet
07-17-2012, 07:35 AM
Ok, so here it goes… friendly like, with rules and page #s.
I cannot read GW’s mind, if they want a squad (more than one) PaladinS to be Ch for whatever reason, that’s cool, I, like many others, would just like to have an answer.
This is for Paladin and etc.
Paladin has a single entry/stat in the GK codex, as you do not have to buy more than one.
Are PaladinS (Ch)? This is a singular verses plural discussion.
Pg 63 BRB;
Characters;
“Veteran warriors…”
(But in the reference chart (RC) IG, SM, and etc. all of whom have Veteran Squads as options do not get (Ch) for those entries?)
Maybe, because all the Veterans in the squad have the same stats/entry, just like more than one Paladin in a squad/unit would then become PaladinS and then all would have the same stat/entry?
“Brilliant officers, possessed prophets, and ferocious war leaders…”
(So, in the RC some of these guys/gals are covered, and some are, as some put it, overlooked/RC has mistakes?)
Or, missing from the RC on purpose?
So, do you follow the “rules” instead of thinking the mistake ridden RC chart is the end all law?
Here is the kicker;
“…are often quicker, stronger, and more skilled… than those they “lead”…”
(Vague rules, yes, but specific that Ch are again, “Leaders.” Again, veteran squads do not have a leader, as they are all the same, just like when you buy more than one Paladin, they become all the same.)
Character Types (this is “not” the IC section it is below);
“Most” characters are fielded in units from the “start” of the game, … squad “Leaders,” such as…”
(Again, “Leaders.”)
Here it is;
“They have their own profile…”
(Now, in the RC many separate stat/entry guys/gals are not listed, so, overlooked/RC mistakes in some opinions (like the Paladin Apothecary?))
OR, are they left out on purpose, like the Veteran squads, and the RC is again “the Law?”
OR, is there no need to list them in the RC, because they are covered in the rules section already?
Is the GK Paladin Apothecary a (Ch) according to the rules? (Ignore the RC for this one second)
He has his own entry/stat? BUT, he is NOT an actual leader?
So, nope??
(But wait see below!!)
But, derp, the SM Apothecary in a command squad is a Ch, so the GK Apothecary in the RC must be a mistake, derp?
Not according to the rules and the RC; What if you ONLY buy the SM Apothecary and NOT the SM Company Champion, then the Apothecary IS a separate stat/entry, with different equipment options (just as the rules say), and a “leader” by default, so IS a Ch? (And visa-versa Company Champion (Ch) IS, only if you do not buy the Apothecary?) So, what if you buy both in the squad? Derpity-derp, thanks GW.
SO, if you only bought one Paladin and made him an Apothecary he SHOULD still retain the Ch listing according to the “rules” AND the RC is wrong!!! Wrong TWICE, as if you bought PaladinS (and they were all (Ch) according to some) and made one an Apothecary, then just like the SM command squad above, he would be a separate entry/stat and a leader by default, thus a Ch, so the RC IS very wrong, for both opinions.
How about that for crazy, but it would be right according to the “rules.”
Note, some separate stat guys/gals are listed in the RC as NOT being (Ch), like the Inquisitorial henchmen members, again, as they do not have a “leader” even though they do all have different stats/weapons/etc. one of them with the highest leadership (in the rules) should become the leader, but none of them are Ch according to the RC?
So, ????
“… with enhanced characteristics, and perhaps…”
(More vagueness, but to the point on a Ch being different, yet again, but not much help at this point)
And the final nail in the coffin?
(Here is the singular verses plural conundrum, sorry if I was not clear enough before)
…“Other characters, such as Mephiston…”
(Not JUST IC’s but OTHER lone Ch. Like Assassins maybe, etc.)
“...fight as units “on their own…”
(Like ONE Paladin, as you do NOT have to buy more)
“…they do “NOT” take to the battlefield with other warriors…”
(Which would be PaladinS)
How about that?
So the instant you buy more than one Paladin in your squad, they become PaladinS, of which;
None are the/a leader.
None have a separate stat/entry.
(just like Veteran IG/SM squads)
Thus, plural, no longer (Ch).
GK FaQ;
Amendments
“…consult the RC for an up to date list of “Unit Types” and…”
Paladin; (In) (Ch)
So, this can go two ways here;
Ignore the rules on pg63 entirely and just use the RC (mistakes or not irrelevant) as law.
Or
Use the RC for what it was designed for, a reference (mistakes or not irrelevant) to bring an old Codex up to date, and use the “rules” to decipher what is an actual Ch.
Or
Roll a D6
Why do we always assume that the most powerful/beneficial (ALL Paladins in the squad are Ch) is the right answer, and not the "less" powerful/beneficial is the answer (Only a unit of ONE Paladin is a Ch)?
How was that?
I cannot read GW’s mind, if they want a squad (more than one) PaladinS to be Ch for whatever reason, that’s cool, I, like many others, would just like to have an answer.
This is for Paladin and etc.
Paladin has a single entry/stat in the GK codex, as you do not have to buy more than one.
Are PaladinS (Ch)? This is a singular verses plural discussion.
Pg 63 BRB;
Characters;
“Veteran warriors…”
(But in the reference chart (RC) IG, SM, and etc. all of whom have Veteran Squads as options do not get (Ch) for those entries?)
Maybe, because all the Veterans in the squad have the same stats/entry, just like more than one Paladin in a squad/unit would then become PaladinS and then all would have the same stat/entry?
“Brilliant officers, possessed prophets, and ferocious war leaders…”
(So, in the RC some of these guys/gals are covered, and some are, as some put it, overlooked/RC has mistakes?)
Or, missing from the RC on purpose?
So, do you follow the “rules” instead of thinking the mistake ridden RC chart is the end all law?
Here is the kicker;
“…are often quicker, stronger, and more skilled… than those they “lead”…”
(Vague rules, yes, but specific that Ch are again, “Leaders.” Again, veteran squads do not have a leader, as they are all the same, just like when you buy more than one Paladin, they become all the same.)
Character Types (this is “not” the IC section it is below);
“Most” characters are fielded in units from the “start” of the game, … squad “Leaders,” such as…”
(Again, “Leaders.”)
Here it is;
“They have their own profile…”
(Now, in the RC many separate stat/entry guys/gals are not listed, so, overlooked/RC mistakes in some opinions (like the Paladin Apothecary?))
OR, are they left out on purpose, like the Veteran squads, and the RC is again “the Law?”
OR, is there no need to list them in the RC, because they are covered in the rules section already?
Is the GK Paladin Apothecary a (Ch) according to the rules? (Ignore the RC for this one second)
He has his own entry/stat? BUT, he is NOT an actual leader?
So, nope??
(But wait see below!!)
But, derp, the SM Apothecary in a command squad is a Ch, so the GK Apothecary in the RC must be a mistake, derp?
Not according to the rules and the RC; What if you ONLY buy the SM Apothecary and NOT the SM Company Champion, then the Apothecary IS a separate stat/entry, with different equipment options (just as the rules say), and a “leader” by default, so IS a Ch? (And visa-versa Company Champion (Ch) IS, only if you do not buy the Apothecary?) So, what if you buy both in the squad? Derpity-derp, thanks GW.
SO, if you only bought one Paladin and made him an Apothecary he SHOULD still retain the Ch listing according to the “rules” AND the RC is wrong!!! Wrong TWICE, as if you bought PaladinS (and they were all (Ch) according to some) and made one an Apothecary, then just like the SM command squad above, he would be a separate entry/stat and a leader by default, thus a Ch, so the RC IS very wrong, for both opinions.
How about that for crazy, but it would be right according to the “rules.”
Note, some separate stat guys/gals are listed in the RC as NOT being (Ch), like the Inquisitorial henchmen members, again, as they do not have a “leader” even though they do all have different stats/weapons/etc. one of them with the highest leadership (in the rules) should become the leader, but none of them are Ch according to the RC?
So, ????
“… with enhanced characteristics, and perhaps…”
(More vagueness, but to the point on a Ch being different, yet again, but not much help at this point)
And the final nail in the coffin?
(Here is the singular verses plural conundrum, sorry if I was not clear enough before)
…“Other characters, such as Mephiston…”
(Not JUST IC’s but OTHER lone Ch. Like Assassins maybe, etc.)
“...fight as units “on their own…”
(Like ONE Paladin, as you do NOT have to buy more)
“…they do “NOT” take to the battlefield with other warriors…”
(Which would be PaladinS)
How about that?
So the instant you buy more than one Paladin in your squad, they become PaladinS, of which;
None are the/a leader.
None have a separate stat/entry.
(just like Veteran IG/SM squads)
Thus, plural, no longer (Ch).
GK FaQ;
Amendments
“…consult the RC for an up to date list of “Unit Types” and…”
Paladin; (In) (Ch)
So, this can go two ways here;
Ignore the rules on pg63 entirely and just use the RC (mistakes or not irrelevant) as law.
Or
Use the RC for what it was designed for, a reference (mistakes or not irrelevant) to bring an old Codex up to date, and use the “rules” to decipher what is an actual Ch.
Or
Roll a D6
Why do we always assume that the most powerful/beneficial (ALL Paladins in the squad are Ch) is the right answer, and not the "less" powerful/beneficial is the answer (Only a unit of ONE Paladin is a Ch)?
How was that?