False Leads

[LAWwaldo]

  Yes, that would make it complicatd.  Why would there just be 1 for 1-999 and then gain another for the next 500 points?  I think it makes sense to have it:

1-500 = 1 false lead
501-1000 = 2 false leads
1001-1500 = 3 false leads
etc...

Therfore you just divide by 500 and round up.  Pretty simple.  Not trying to be anal, just trying to stick with how I feel about the subject.  False leads are just such a freaking awsome idea, you should never leave home without them and the more you have, the more entertaining it becomes.  Anywho, back to studying.

[dmcgee1]

I reiterate that it is my opinion that the rules did not intend to have forces of less than 500 points not be entitled to a false lead.

I believe that this discussion has reached a point that it needs an official ruling.

I agree with both statements. For what it's worth that's the way two members of the old FAQ Team play it.

P.S.:  What's with the Karma, around here.  I applaud everyone who gives meaningful input, yet I get none - are my comments not worthy?  Am I not worthy?  Am I a Karmawhore?  I dunno...

Green text sorry cannot read. 

.

So, who told you it was there?

[behemoth]

This needs to be clarified in the FAQ as a simple entry.

[Wulfen]

My question concerning False Leads: The book mentions that some armies will get additional false leads, but in checking, I didn't see any lists that got extra. Are there any or did I just search in the wrong places?

[PFC joe]

Those units that provided false leads got shifted to a future release.  They'll be around before too long.

-PFC joe

[Psyborg]

The same applies here:  "For every 500, there is one."  That means that if there is more than one 500, but less than two 500's, there is two, etc.

I do not agree with this statement.

What "For every 500, there is one." means is For every 500, there is one.  So at 500 you get one and "For every 1000 there are 2, so at 1000 you get your second and "For every 1500 there is 3." so at 1500 you get your third so on and so forth.

This is the way the group I play with handles it.

[dmcgee1]

The same applies here:  "For every 500, there is one."  That means that if there is more than one 500, but less than two 500's, there is two, etc.

I do not agree with this statement.

What "For every 500, there is one." means is For every 500, there is one.  So at 500 you get one and "For every 1000 there are 2, so at 1000 you get your second and "For every 1500 there is 3." so at 1500 you get your third so on and so forth.

This is the way the group I play with handles it.

So, if I say, "for every one, there is one," this means that there isn't one unless there's two?

That's not right.  Think of the number 500 as the first group - or group one.  Therefore, 501 - 1000 would be group two, etc.  By your definition, the phrase, "For every one, you get one," means that you don't one unless you have two of that thing.  That doesn't make sense.  Please, if you are going to quote my point, don't take it out of context...here is the entire original quote:

In my opinion, it was never intended that armies of under 500 points should not get a false lead.  Hence, every 500 points is read as, "each 500 points (or fraction thereof)."

Breaking it down, one could not argue the following sentence "For every part, there is a counterpart," to not mean anything other than, "for each one, there is one."

The same applies here:  "For every 500, there is one."  That means that if there is more than one 500, but less than two 500's, there is two, etc.

Think of each group of 500 as its own, individual group.

[PhillySniper]

In my opinion, it was never intended that armies of under 500 points should not get a false lead.  Hence, every 500 points is read as, "each 500 points (or fraction thereof)."

Breaking it down, one could not argue the following sentence "For every part, there is a counterpart," to not mean anything other than, "for each one, there is one."

The same applies here:  "For every 500, there is one."  That means that if there is more than one 500, but less than two 500's, there is two, etc.

Think of each group of 500 as its own, individual group.

I think you just made my "our" point for us. You said "For every 500, there is one." you didnt say fraction of 500, you said 500 with 500 being the target number not the qualifier. 

Its been said before and I think it bears saying again.... I think we need an official ruling on this one beucase actually both sides are making alot of sense

[PFC joe]

you guys realize that the False leads are for the Game level and not the actual army composition, don't you?

i.e. for a 1000 point game both sides would get two cards, irregardless of whether they have 999 or 1001 points.

I don't know many people that crunch numbers to get exact, round point totals.

-PFC joe

[Topkick]

PFC Joe actually has a good point that should actually end the whole debate but I'll bet it won't so here is my two cents on DMcGee's arguement.

The book states, "In general however, an army is entitled to one False Lead for every five hundred points it has."

The answer is in the quote you made in the first post bubba. It does not say that for every 500 points or part thereof - it clearly indicates that having 500 points is a pre-requisite for a False Lead. Therefore it would take a second full 500 points(1000 points) to have a 2nd False Lead and a third full 500 points(1500 points) to have a 3rd False Lead.

You are putting words into the sentence that aren't there. By your logic I should be able to take any portion of 2 grunt squads to take a support squad rather than two squads.

[dmcgee1]

you guys realize that the False leads are for the Game level and not the actual army composition, don't you?

i.e. for a 1000 point game both sides would get two cards, irregardless of whether they have 999 or 1001 points.

I don't know many people that crunch numbers to get exact, round point totals.

-PFC joe

Yes, I realize that, Joe.  BTW, please, define, "irregardless." 

[dmcgee1]

PFC Joe actually has a good point that should actually end the whole debate but I'll bet it won't so here is my two cents on DMcGee's arguement.

The book states, "In general however, an army is entitled to one False Lead for every five hundred points it has."

The answer is in the quote you made in the first post bubba. It does not say that for every 500 points or part thereof - it clearly indicates that having 500 points is a pre-requisite for a False Lead. Therefore it would take a second full 500 points(1000 points) to have a 2nd False Lead and a third full 500 points(1500 points) to have a 3rd False Lead.

You are putting words into the sentence that aren't there. By your logic I should be able to take any portion of 2 grunt squads to take a support squad rather than two squads.

Bubba?  I understand what it the quote says, however, I think that it, like other ambiguities in the book, is open to interpretation.  I, firmly, do not believe that it was intended for games of less than 500 points to not have a false lead for each side.  It is my opinion, and I have been trying to back it up with logic and reason.

You are, as well, entitled to your opinion, as is anyone who has a point of view on the subject.  It is as valid, if not more so, than mine.  I am not saying that anyone is wrong on the issue at hand.  Some examples are flawed, and I pointed them out, but I did not mean to give the idea that I believe that I am right beyond all doubt.  If I did, my apologies.

I believe that I am interpreting the quote from the book correctly, in keeping with the intent, and not, necessarily the text.

[Topkick]

I use the word bubba a lot. I don't mean anything derogatory by it. I'm not sure where I picked it up - I think when I was at Ft Bragg 20 freaking years ago. Trust me if I want to slam you I have much better weapons in my arsenal. BTW I also use the word buckwheat as well.

As for the question at hand - I don't think you wanted an answer to your original question as much as you wanted validation. That being the case I withdraw from the field and leave you to interpret the book any way you want.

[dmcgee1]

I use the word bubba a lot. I don't mean anything derogatory by it. I'm not sure where I picked it up - I think when I was at Ft Bragg 20 freaking years ago. Trust me if I want to slam you I have much better weapons in my arsenal. BTW I also use the word buckwheat as well.

As for the question at hand - I don't think you wanted an answer to your original question as much as you wanted validation. That being the case I withdraw from the field and leave you to interpret the book any way you want.

Sorry, Top, I didn't mean to insinuate that you were insulting me.  I didn't take it as such.

As for the validation?  Yeah, I guess I am looking for that.  That would mean that my opinion is correct, and not just supposed.  If the official ruling is how you interpret, I'll be okay with it, and won't linger on it.

[PFC joe]

i'm pretty certain that irregardless is actually a combination of irrespective and regardless, both of which apply to the original idea that actual points don't really matter so much as allotted points.

and I'd have to agree with Topkick in that sub-500 point games don't get a False Lead.

-PFC joe