"The Chief can use Leadership. If Leadership would allow you to add an action to..."

I'm wondering,having multiple characters with Leadership on your team, if you miss your Chief's Leadership Roll but get the Leadership roll with another character can you still put the Manipulation Token on Chief's Card?

Nope. You can put a token on the card if Chief himself makes his Leadership roll.

What do you call 453 dead rules lawyers???




















































A pretty good start.

I figured as much. Just that I was re-reading the card and it got me thinking.

Dude, as mentioned by someone else, this is a game of rules. Maybe in friendly, non-tournament games you can fudge with the rules to maximize entertainment, but in competitive tournament games with prizes there needs to be some sort of order to maintain fairness.

Actually, another figure's Leadership success indeed can add to Chief's Manipulate.

I believe that's what Norm ruled on it.

Was that rule lawyering? I've experienced REAL rule Lawyering. Things such as calling your opponent out on not announcing powers and certain actions.

I just started participating in tourneys, and the other day before the match I mentioned that I was still learning the ways of tourneys. First thing my opponent did was look over my team and start attempting to pick it apart. He saw my Older Armor Piercing feat card and asked if i had the newer reprint from Armor Wars (I was playing a restricted tourney). I told him yea I have both but thought it wouldn't matter since AP has been reprinted anyways. He then spotted my Submerged Feat card which I had been using all tourney long with my Tempest. He then proceeded to call the judge and get my feat removed, despite the fact that at the start of the tourney I had asked the judge if my team was legal (Since I'm still pretty new to the tourney scene I'm not sure which sets are still allowed in restricted) and with a quick glance the judge said I was fine and had me start my match..... THATS RULE LAWYERING

Got a link?

'Cause that's definitely not what he said in this thread (post #24):

Hmm, guess I misread that.

Good to know, anyway, I'd hate for Chief to become any more borken than he already is.

I hate to bring us further off-track from the original post, but rules lawyering isn't a well defined thing and is best applied during noncompetitive games. However, I will say that it is not unreasonable to expect retirement to be enforced at tournaments and the judge probably unintentionally overlooked the Submerged feat. Mistakes like that are made all of the time; it's best to just correct them, learn from them, and then move on.