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.

I agree with Redbeard: I see "therefore" as a statement of implication (A therefore B means that A implies B). Also, I don't see any indication that the list of instances in which PotMS can be used is exhaustive.

I voted A. I suspect that if GW makes a FAQ that includes this issue, they will rule B, but for now A is what the rules suggest. As for how I would actually play it, it hasn't yet come up, but I suppose I'll leave that to the discretion of my opponent. I would prefer the game be played as I think it was intended (B), but I couldn't object to somebody playing it as it currently stands (A).