Putting the opening contents of Speculation + the "Contradiction" section here, so when I go through and change it, I'm not just obliterating someone's ideas, and if they want to argue for them, here they are:
The term Commander is used in two separate ways. All units with Leadership, including Warlords, and Chief Warlords, are periodically called Commander by their associates as a title. The actual rank of Commander indicates that a unit has the Leadership Natural Ability, but no confers no Leadership Bonus to units under its command; whereas, Warlords and Chief Warlords confer a Leadership Bonus to units in their stack and in other cases as well.
Contradiction in Terminology
It seems that "Commander" is a more general term - Commanders have an ability to lead other units in combat (not necessarily deriving from Leadership natural ability) while Warlords are Commanders who have Leadership ability and thus give units under their command a Leadership bonus. It should be noted that in some special cases Casters can give a bonus to certain units under their command (known examples are Golems led by a Dirtamancer and uncroaked led by a Croakamancer)Erf-b1-p084a.
- Commander I. Heartly Noah June 3 2009
Noah, that thing reads badly. It is also reliant on "Only Warlords have leadership." But you're taking all of the context away. The bit aboout Casters being Commanders comes first. Further, Parson learns over time. We've seen him correct himself without noting mistakes before. "Casters are Commanders and can lead stacks... but [Casters] give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only warlords have Leadership." Is the correct way to rad that paragraph. You're flipping sentences around, and that changes context away from intention.
Commanders must have Leadership. If they don't, then "stacks without a leader are forced to auto-attack" would change to become "stacks without a warlord are forced to auto-attack".
This all resolves very easily with the restored context for "Only Warlords have leadership." That coccurs immediately after the mention that Casters can leda but don't provide a leadership bonus... their Leadership is 0. They have leadership, but it's 0. The Warlords comment means only that Warlords provide a Leadership bonus, but Commanders do not. Look at the paragraph that follows. "Makes sense. Except for certain exceptions. Like say.. the bonus to those golems if they're lead by the Dirtamancer." So, to complete the return of context...
""Casters are Commanders and can lead stacks... but [Casters] give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only warlords have Leadership. Except for certain exceptions. Like the bonus to those golems if they're lead by the Dirtamancer." Parson is only talking about "Only Warlords have a leadership bonus." It's the only explanation that keeps it all in context. It explains the first Klog ont he subject, and resolves this seeming Terminology Conflict. Rob took a short cut on that sentence, that's all. (Honestly, I didn't know anyone had a problem with this.) --Kreistor 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, this page is now really confusing, as is this explanation. I didn't even understand some of the resolutions you put up. And you thought my little blurb read badly?
- First of all, I think you're muddying things up by confusing or combining the ability to Command a stack, i.e. keep it from auto-attacking, giving orders, etc., which we know all Casters and Warlords can do, with the Natural Ability of Leadership, i.e. the conferring of a Leadership Bonus to the troops in your stack.
- Also, you're totally misquoting Klog 10 in that you removed the paragraph break. It makes it look like the exception is to only Warlords having leadership, and it's not. The exception is to it making sense (that casters never lead stacks). Look:
- "...Casters are Commanders, and can lead stacks, but they almost never do. Casters are too rare and valuable to risk, and they give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway. Only Warlords have leadership.
- Makes sense. Except for certain exceptions. Like, say... the bonus to those Golems if they're led by a Dirtamancer."
- I submit that "Casters are Commanders and can lead [command] stacks." I also submit that Warlords are also Commanders and can lead stacks. The only other way to read this is that Casters are Commanders and Warlords are not, but Jillian, a primo warlord, asks to be called Commander, so you can throw that out.
- So we know for sure that both Casters and Warlords are Commanders and can lead [command] stacks.
- All that's left, then, is to determine whether Casters have the Natural Ability of Leadership, at value 0, which will never improve, or don't.
- It seems to me having a value of 0 is pointless. The only reason would be if it were necessary to command a stack; I submit that it is not. Simply being a Commander is enough for that.
- Also, there is no indication in the Klog that Casters have Leadership (the Natural Ability/stat), in fact quite the opposite. Only Warlords have leadership, and the exception is not an exception to that statement, but to the statement that it makes sense not to use casters to lead stacks. The bonus to golems and uncroaked is not a Leadership bonus. Parson doesn't use the word Leadership there, so he doesn't contradict the statement that "Only Warlords have Leadership." Since they are unit-specific, it's no stretch to believe they are special, non-leadership bonuses. - Commander I. Heartly Noah June 28 2009 17:16 (UTC)
- "and they give no leadership bonus to the stack anyway... Except for certain exceptions." I understand what you're saying... you don't think it's a leadership bonus. But then, a Caster and a Warlord could both lead a stack, and both give different bonuses. Parson hangs around the battle at the Courtyard Breach, but that may be because of the Chief Warlord bonus that can be added to all units in the Hex. I really don't think taht this paragraph would have included "Except for certain exceptions", if he wasn't talking about casters giving a Leadership bonus. That's very, very confusing if true.
- But I think you need to re-write Resolution 4. It doesn't actually identify how it resolves the problem. I know where you're trying to get to, but it doesn't connect the final dot. It doesn't identify how it resolves the issue. --Kreistor 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Then please explain to me what's missing, because in my mind, there is no issue, and I'm just explaining why I see it that way.
- I don't get what you mean about Parson hanging around; as long as he's in the city, his bonus applies to all units in the city.
- As far as both Casters and Warlords being able to lead a stack and offering it different bonuses: Yeah. Exactly. So? A Chief Warlord offers a bonus to his stack that other Warlords don't. (or, alternatively, he offers the same bonus but also offers a lesser bonus to the rest of the hex, depending how you read Vinny's comments) A high-Leadership Warlord offers a better bonus than a low-Leadership one. But what if the low-Leadership one is a better fighter, or has a magic item? Casters can lead stacks but offer no bonuses. But they can cast spells, and might have, say, the Arkenpliers, and in certain special circumstances they offer special bonuses. There will be reasons for and against any Commander leading a stack; the primary one, shared by all, is the ability to give the Units in that stack directions. Everything else (Leadership bonuses, other bonuses, rarity & value of the Commander, status as Heir, combat ability, expendability, etc. etc.) must be considered by the Ruler when making decisions of who leads whom. Why not have multiple choices? Why would it be as simple as "Highest level Warlord with the best stack, etc?" Maybe you want a great Warlord on a weak stack and a crummy on on the Heavy stack, for balance. Maybe you want two Warlords in the same stack.
- In the end, I don't understand any of the other resolutions. I get the opening statements, even agree with them, but I don't understand the conclusions. I can see the possibility of me being wrong on Casters having Leadership:0 vs no Leadership (it's a small but important difference, but I could be off). But I don't understand the overall confusion here and I don't understand the other arguments.Commander I. Heartly Noah July 1, 2009
- Parson: he must have a reason for putting himself in harms way. We know he's trying to stack bonuses, so it falls to reason that he's in Courtyard to add a bonus. But we know he already adds one to all units in the City...
- Hark back to Caesar. Vinnie mentions Caesar turning his own stack into the equivalent of heavies. Unless that came from being merely an extremely high level unit compared to everyone else, adding his full bonus shouldn't be that exceptional. In fact, if he adds 1/2 his bonus to stacks with Warlords providing other bonuses, the stacks with two leadership bonuses should be more powerful than his own. GO ahead and write that out, if you need to. The math behind it might need some examples. Make a stack with a Warlord 5 with a Chief Warlord 10 in the hex. That stack gets leadership bonuses of 6+(10/2) = 11. The Chief Warlord's gets only +10. Chief Warlord stack is weaker. So why is the CW's heavy and the others lighter?
- The Chief Warlord must be adding his own bonus twice. We're used to MtG and DnD where similar bonuses don't stack... it's an assumption that a unit can't add its own bonus twice. Now Parson being in the vicinity makes sense and Caesar's is more powerful. arson adds +2 for being in the City, +2 for being in the stack.
- Need to explain the other yet. Easy one first. --Kreistor 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)