Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By nobody on 05/05/2006 1:59 PM
Again, mughi, you are conveniently ignoring the wording on the Team section of pg 24:

Number/Team/Squad etc This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization chart.

mughi is dead-on right.  He's laid it out without any appeals to what the 'intent' was or what is/isn't implied.  And nobody, you are reading that sentence completely wrong.  The 'or' in "This shows the number of models in the unit, or the number of models you may take for one choice from the Force Organization Chart" is not to distinguish between what is and is not in a 'Unit'.  mughi has already made it quite plain how that is defined.  Rather, the 'or' distinguishes between a Number/Team/Squad entry with a set number of models versus one with a variable number.

'From' is a preposition.  Prepositions are used to indicate direction, location, position and so forth.  I think it's very clear how this works in relation to this sentence.

Nobody said:
"There are two possible answers: That this is one unit, or that this is one Force Organization chart entry. It does not mean that Number/Team/Squad is always the same thing as one unit."

NO, there are not two possible answers.  It really is one unit, subject to all the rules that mughi laid out.  Again, you're misinterpreting what the 'or' is.

-Yad

Yad,

What he's doing is interpreting the rules how he believes the intent should be

The wording is like this: (1)The number of models in the unit or (2)The number of models you may take for one choice.

In most cases, the first entry is used. You have a unit with a number of models. Nowhere on that page are you told that this is a fixed number.

The second entry normally only is applied with such cases as Death Cult Assassins, Biovores, Zoanthropes, and Ork Looted Vehicles.

I'm curious though, do you think that a Broodlord's retinue gets to use the Unholy Strength rule? Why or why not?

Hey Yad, didn't you used to advise Bill Clinton

Okay, I personally have a distinct lack of other codecies. Couple Questions:

1. With any of the other units with required transports (FA sister squads, armoured fist companies, etc.), are there any that have the same wording in the "Number/Team/Squad etc" area, i.e. "x-y squad members and a transport type"? (if no, then we have either the implication that GW meant to do something different with the PF team + DF than any other squad... or we have the implication that GW may not edit their rulebooks very well )

2. Second question: are there any other squads with this wording in the "Number/Team/Squad etc" section that also have special rules? Because, technically, if we argue that the DF has scout abilities, then we'd also have to argue that these other transports (assuming they are worded the same) also get the special rules of the squad... I'd like to see if there are some amazingly hilarioous results (And assuming some suitably illogical examples, we can hopefully kill the "its part of the unit/team/squad" entry arguement that is causing so much.. fun in the thread)

Just some food for thought (I'm on the fence on this ATM. I'll play without the rule for now because ... is better to play less permissive on some things until it is completely sorted out)

Posted By Ryo on 05/08/2006 11:12 PM
... ...

2. Second question: are there any other squads with this wording in the "Number/Team/Squad etc" section that also have special rules? Because, technically, if we argue that the DF has scout abilities, then we'd also have to argue that these other transports (assuming they are worded the same) also get the special rules of the squad... I'd like to see if there are some amazingly hilarioous results (And assuming some suitably illogical examples, we can hopefully kill the "its part of the unit/team/squad" entry arguement that is causing so much.. fun in the thread) ...

This in itself would not invalidate the argument. It would only demonstrate that GW are bad at explaining rules, which we know.