poobaloo said:

I'm not trying to be a naysayer here and discourage you from asking the question but I think you are both missing the key wording of Leadership and wasting both time and energy with this issue: Hero A (with Leadership) does NOT place the order on Hero B. Hero A gives Hero B the ability to place an order (on Hero B) INSTEAD of Hero A placing an order (on Hero A). Once Hero A decides to allow Hero B to place an order, Hero A doesn't even have any control over WHICH order Hero B decides to place (other than making a suggestion)

The question SHOULD be:

During the same round, Hero A ENABLES Hero B to place a Rest Order. At the start of Hero B's turn, does he gain full fatigue as the result of said Rest Order?

Frankly, it's a not issue... Hero B has a Rest Order on him (that he placed during Hero A's turn) at the start of his turn and thus receives the benefit of said Rest Order.

Sometimes the rules in the game actually make sense within the rules and we end up misreading or misinterpreting them.

Oboewan said:

Trust me, I fully understand what you mean and I 100% agree with you. I never meant to imply that the Hero with Leadership dictated what order was placed.

Big Remy said:

Actually.... he does!

The hero with leadership chooses an order. He may then allow another hero to place THAT order. At least, that's if you take it very literal (and my memory serves me well).

Siebeltje said:

I don't recall that impression from the card text but that really has no bearing on the point I was trying to make. The point is that the OTHER hero actually PLACES the order not that Hero with Leadership.

Siebeltje said:

I mis-spoke, you are right.

poobaloo said:

I should have used less words. Basically, I meant that the players do not define the official rules. If a rule is written in such a way that is broken, us players can ignore it or play it in a way we deem "better", but the official version will always be broken until it is fixed. You seem to be saying that a broken rule cannot be correct or official because...well, honestly I don't really get your reasoning why this must be so. At no point am I saying "we must play by the official rules", I am simply saying that the official rules stand immutable in the face of dislike or disregard. I don't like it when people point to custom rules as being "house rules": it implies some kind of homebrewed impurity. Conversely, I have no qualms with rigid, rules-lawyerly definition of the "official rules" as long as I know that there is some authority and whether I feel like listening to it or not is my choice.

In this case, leadership is simply as powerful as you fear, and in the case of the dungeon location, the key word is explore. If you explore a dungeon location, you go into the process of clearing dungeon levels. Merely moving to a location is not exploring it. As for the rules lawyering itself, I believe that professional game designers tend to know more about wtf they're doing than I do, so I trust what they've written until empirical evidence proves otherwise: for the record, empirical evidence proved that the original leadership card is just about the strongest skill card in the game, especially when combined with Cleaving and on a melee character.

poobaloo said:

Regarding the dungeon location, I was one of those other but was mistakenly working from a different piece of text.

The difference here though, is that you are being inconsistant in your application. You are adding rules that are not there, then assuming that the Card is broken because it does not conform to the rules you have added.

Leadership as written is not a 'broken' rule. It 'changes' the standard rules in the same way that many, many other skills do (basically creates specific and often limit exceptions to the standard rules). That does not make it ' break ' the rules though, and as has been laid out here already, its use does not actually contradict any rules except in the explicit ways indicated by the card text.

If you can accurately say "This thing cannot be implemented without breaking the rules in non-explicitly written ways" then you have a clear error in the rules and it is necessary to houserule it some way to make it work. It appears you thought this was the case but it has been shown that this assumption was in error.

If you instead say "I/We think this is too powerful and will houserule it to say 'XXXX" instead" then all power to you.

Note this thread has been confused by various usages of the word/phrase 'break the rules'.

- In some cases it is used to refer to 'making exceptions' (eg Unmoveable is an exception to the usual Battle action in that it allows a Battling Hero to also place a Guard order and get a temporary +1 Armour).

- In other cases it is used to infer 'the rules cannot be followed accurately because there is a break in the linear/logical/whatever chain' (a possible example here is the dungeon/location/area-moving/entering/exploring muddle outlined in another thread).

- In yet other cases it is used to refer to consequences of rules that damage the game experience, possibly irrevocably' (examples being the power of instant-Rest Leadership, the Gauntlets of Power/Rapid Fire combo, Telekinesis, etc etc).

IMO there are actually remarkably few of the second type for such a complex and disjointedly layered game!

In the old forums, Kevin stopped by and said that leadership was meant to be triggered by an advance action only.

Its not written on the card, but it was his intend. I dont know why he didnt put it in the FAQ (prolly forgot it). Is the old board still accessable somewhere?

Dreepa said:

Which makes a certain amount of sense.

I've gotten to it before because I still have an old email around with a link to one of the threads. If you have one I'd try that.

Dreepa said:

You must be mistaken.

It is specifically written on the card. It is triggered on a Ready action (Ready is emboldened).

Thus, RAW, The three actions must be (first two not in order) 1/2. Place an Order. 2/1 Either Move or Attack. 3. anything you like (not specified). Note that KW has apparently written in a forum that the third action must be the other of Attack or Move (ie 3 different halves) but this is not in the RAW or FAQ.

OTOH, Kevin's 'ruling' would actually make sense if Leadership was supposed to be based on an Advance instead of a Ready!

Corbon said:

He isn't, you are though. There's a sticky that still has the answer at the top of the forum here - the answer itself wasn't in the old but in the very old forums that aren't online anymore. I'll quote it for you here:

Leadership
The two half actions given by the leadership card, do they have to be different half actions, or could you "Attack" twice?

Actually, when using the Ready action, you can't select the same half action more than once. The wording is a bit confusing, yes. But you can move, attack, and place an order, or move, place order, and concentrate, or whatever. Just no double attacks or double moves or whatnot.

You can't play a complex game just by the RAW and ignore clarifications made by the designers. On the other hand, you're free to house rule that in your games, the designer's intent is ignored and you can make double attacks and sprints plus order, or anything you like.

Hi,

haslo said:

I would agree if the clarifications would give the impression that they are well thought out, instead of being answered spontaneously without thinking about older clarifications or consequences to the whole game. As it is, the official and unofficial FAQs are full of contradictions and ambiguities, so I don't think such a general statement as "you cannot play a game and ignore clarifications by the designers" can be applied here.

-Kylearan

Corbon said:

Sorry, I said it the wrong way.

I meant: You take an order action, and you gain an additional advance action. 1 Move, 1 Combat, 1 Order. No option can be chosen 2 times.

Kylearan said:

True, yeah ... this case seems pretty clear-cut though - the skill was obviously playtested with an Advance version of the two half actions only, and thus giving it the same powers for Battle or Sprint versions would make it stronger than intended.

Other things like the whole "Feats in RtL" of course support your argument, so indeed, my post was yet again too straightforward

haslo said:

Pay more attention next time. He was mistaken, I was not. His statement was that KW had clarified Leadership as being based on an Advance + Order. My statement was that it specifically reads on the card that it is based on a Ready action.

And you can (and arguably should) play in a complex game by the RAW (and official FAQs/errata) and ignore ill-thought and innaccurate comments by designers. Firstly, Designers aren't gods They make errors just like everyone else. In the given example what KW writes as though what he says comes from the RAW, yet it does not. There is an implication in the RAW, which he appears to be using as the justification for his answer, but he has extrapolated the implication further than it implicates (you might say he has made a second order implication!). The number of contradictions and errors in the rules and FAQs (and various answers on forums) clearly indicate that the designers can make errors in reading their own rules. The RtL/Feats answer is a case in point. Not that there was any real choice to say anything different, but the answer basically says, "sorry guys, without Feats RtL is massively broken in favour of the OL" - which empirical evidence has blatantly not shown to be the case. Secondly, not everyone will always have access to the very latest random mumbling from the designer. Everyone who plays a game should have made enough effort to access an official FAQ/Errata. Or have no problem with a 'rules change' based on such. There is nothing worse however than playing a competitive game and someone suddenly pulls out a rule change on you based on some random email or forum answer by the designer. Especially as such things can easily be faked.

Heck, I play a tabletop miniature game where the designer is widely considered an absolute genious and is paid (relatively, for the gaming world) larg(ish) sums by at least two military organisations to design (different) games to teach their officers. He also plays, or has played, the game I play in competitions, and is widely considered grossly incompetent, frequently having to be shown in the rules (which he wrote) that you can't do X, can do Y, or the result of this action is Z. His answers to questions are also grossly inaccurate and often directly contradictory. Because he doesn't have time to do an in depth study of each question and how it interacts with the whole game, he just answers it as best he can (which frequently isn't that good anyway).

For those who are interested, the implication(s) mentioned above for the leadership card go like this;

- any action with two moves is a Run, therefore you cannot move+order+move for Leadership as you have done a Run and must instead do a Ready (despite the fact that you have done a Ready, apparently Running overides Readying)

- any action with two attacks is a Battle, therefore you cannot attack+order+attack for Leadership as you have done a Battle and must instead do a Ready (despite the fact that you have done a Ready, apparently Battling overides Readying)

- Implied by these two implications is that you cannot do any double action, therefore you must do three different half-actions.

He already put his statement into perspective, in the latter post.

Dreepa - Can you clarify please: Leadership is triggered by an Advance action? If yes does this mean you can link it to Able Warrior and/or Relentless or am I getting the wrong end of the stick here?

Cheers

No, I already corrected myself.

Corbon got it right: You trigger the skill by selecing a READY action, and you gain a third half action this turn. No half action can be taken twice however. Therefore the last 2 remaining parts can only be 1x MOVE and 1x ATTACK. Move and attack is an ADVANCE action, hence the confusion.

So basically: You declare READY, trigger leadership by paying 1 fatigue, and are allowed to move a number of spaces up to your speed, make one attack and place one order on you (or make another hero place an order right now, in your turn).