Moff Gideon's Leader Ability Description Was Missing the Word "Also"

Not that I invested the zeta, but are you refunding the zeta for people who thought you get those bonuses just for bringing in imperial troopers?

I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200906" wrote:

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

I am not upset about it because I don't have an IT team nor do I have a spare zeta to apply, but his 3v3 viability as a leader is non existent, because he doesn't have a lead without 4 other teammates.

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200906" wrote:

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

To be fair, I dont think its "reading comprehension", it appears like your adding the zeta to gain more flexibility to just using IT, over the restricted setup of the first part. The word also, removes any question of this being 2 separate elements, and since the first part is not IT specific by any means, Also is a very important distinction.

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200906" wrote:

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

Without the "also," it's easily read as two separate clauses. If all allies are troopers, you get this. If allies are specific composition, you get this. If both, you get both.

You can't get the second half without the first half, though, which isn't obvious without the "also" in there.

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200906" wrote:

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

Without the word also, it reads like you can put him as an imperial trooper leader with all support or all attackers to get the 2nd part of the leader ability.

But with also in there, he gives no bonuses at all unless they are 1 support, 2 attackers, and one tank.

"Kyno;c-2200919" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200906" wrote:

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

To be fair, I dont think its "reading comprehension", it appears like your adding the zeta to gain more flexibility to just using IT, over the restricted setup of the first part. The word also, removes any question of this being 2 separate elements, and since the first part is not IT specific by any means, Also is a very important distinction.

Oooooh. OK. I get it now. See, I was just going by the upgrade path, which starts out with "have 2 of these, 1 each of these..." So, if people were going by the FULL text, like in the kit reveal (which I don't read, because I like to break things down into their individual upgrades), then NOW I see where one would get confused.

Thanks!

"chionophile;c-2200924" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200906" wrote:

"DarthGlovoc;c-2200882" wrote:

"Lor_San_Teka;c-2200877" wrote:
I'm not a CG apologist by any stretch, but I don't see how the word "also" changes anything. The original descriptions was "if all allies are IT..." How does "also" change the makeup of 2 attackers, 1 tank, 1 support?

The also means that to receive any of the three lower clauses (offense, insight stacks, and revives) you have to have 2 attackers, 1 tank, and 1 support. It reduces his plug n play viability as a leader and restricts him to ITs, so if someone doesn't have full ITs and zetad his lead under miscommunicated pretenses they want their zeta back.

Yeah, still I don't get it. Leadership is role-specific for the 4 spots. Then Zeta adds some nice things for a full IT squad (which means those roles are still needed).

If I was gonna be upset about something, it's that his leadership is useless in dumb 3v3.

Trust me, I'm fully open some justified CG outrage. Just I don't see the interpretation here other than "bad reading comprehension."

Without the "also," it's easily read as two separate clauses. If all allies are troopers, you get this. If allies are specific composition, you get this. If both, you get both.

You can't get the second half without the first half, though, which isn't obvious without the "also" in there.

Perfect, thank you for this break down.