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.

Under the entry Wolf Scouts in the new Space Wolves codex there is a rule written as "Scout". This is not spelled the same as the USR Scouts rule. Is this just a simple editing error that slipped through or did Phil Kelly intend to give this unit a meaningless rule? It's obvious that Wolf Scouts operate as a unit of scouts in terms of gameplay.

I thought space wolves' scouts used a special type of the scouts USR, as defined in their codex...

I voted "Other". It's obviously not the same as Scouts, but that's how I would play it. I'm a very firm believer in TMIR, and I wouldn't try to disallow a SW player from using it. That said, isn't OBEL like ultra-outflank?

GW cannot proof read to save their lives ... it is 99.9999% probable that they are referring to the USR. But without saying it you must use the codex's rules for it ... so does nothing.

Most people will just ignore game workshops failings and assume it is the USR. This is call Rules as played, most people do this all the time. For example deployment is never defined and yet we all manage to start the game.

(edit since i do reread)

If there is no "Scout" rule detailed in the SW Codex then I am certain that it is meant to be the USR "Scouts".
This should be fixed in an Errata (NOT FAQ), but I won't hold my breath!
The missing "s" is hiding in the bushes, and so cannot be seen, proving that it is the same rule!

The missing "s" is a Sneaky Lictor. I bet the new Nid Codex will give the Lictor "Scoutss"

Also, Loaded Answers are Loaded

It is well known that GW, a £100 million corporation which publishes only a few hundred pages of product each year, maintains extremely high standards of proof reading and accuracy in its books.

Any editor worth his salt would easily pick up and query a major typo such as Scout vs Scouts.

It is obvious that Scout cannot be a simple typo, so it must be a new, as yet undeclared rule. Perhaps it is intended to be published as one of the optional House Rules, or FAQs as GW call them.

I just heard the sound of a flip flopping.

It's just a typo. It is the USR Scouts.

I want to hear what they have to say. Qwar can add it to his cigarette.

Kaaihn wrote:It's just a typo. It is the USR Scouts.

If it were a Typo, it would only appear once. It would say "Scout" in the Unit Entry and "Scouts" in the Army List. However, it says "Scout" in both places. Thus, I have to conclude it cannot be a typo, but is instead intentional. If it was not intentional, they would have written the rule differently.

You have already stated that the developers don't write rules that are intentional. Stop spamming this thread.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:You have already stated that the developers don't write rules that are intentional. Stop spamming this thread.

Ignore or if you really must Alert a mod.

Come on this is a serious discussion. You know what I mean.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:You have already stated that the developers don't write rules that are intentional. Stop spamming this thread.

Right, posting twice is spamming...

Anyways, since it is written "Scout" in more than on place, it has to be something different.

So you are saying it is impossible to make the same mistake twice?

Afrikan Blonde wrote:So you are saying it is impossible to make the same mistake twice?

Yes. No competent person would do such a thing.

Gwar! wrote:

Afrikan Blonde wrote:So you are saying it is impossible to make the same mistake twice?

Yes. No competent person would do such a thing.

Then again, this is GW we're talking about...

Afrikan Blonde wrote:So you are saying it is impossible to make the same mistake twice?

If the "mistake" was only in a single place then it would be straightforward.

Consistency is the downfall here: you can only argue intent based on what it written as there are no external sources i.e. batreps to clue in intent. therefore the intent is that they get the rule Scout - which is not defined anywhere.

RAW and current, evidential RAI is that the rule is useless.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:It's just a typo. It is the USR Scouts.

If it were a Typo, it would only appear once. It would say "Scout" in the Unit Entry and "Scouts" in the Army List. However, it says "Scout" in both places. Thus, I have to conclude it cannot be a typo, but is instead intentional. If it was not intentional, they would have written the rule differently.

A typo is not restricted to one place. People misspell the same word in the same way repeatedly, it's common.

A typo produced and then being used as the template for correction by grammatical proof readers/corrections is really not that hard to comprehend.

I do think polls should be as simple as possible.. KISS

They do so very obviously have scouts. Thier own specific rule is somthing entirely different & has its own Name.

Yes. No competent person would do such a thing.

We all know that GW are NOT competent.
So in this light, i say yes, it is once again, GW not proof reading anything

Either that, or with my bad spelling i can become chief writer for GW

Srsly, i iz a gud riter!

JD21290 wrote:

Yes. No competent person would do such a thing.

We all know that GW are NOT competent.
So in this light, i say yes, it is once again, GW not proof reading anything

Either that, or with my bad spelling i can become chief writer for GW

Srsly, i iz a gud riter!

the job is yours

Tri wrote:

JD21290 wrote:

Yes. No competent person would do such a thing.

We all know that GW are NOT competent.
So in this light, i say yes, it is once again, GW not proof reading anything

Either that, or with my bad spelling i can become chief writer for GW

Srsly, i iz a gud riter!

the job is yours

No, he is far to coherent and qualified. I guess we are gonna have to just start the Jervis Cloning Program again.

No, he is far to coherent and qualified. I guess we are gonna have to just start the Jervis Cloning Program again.

Maybe i can start drinking daily rather than weekly?
should drop down my coherency quite a bit

Allthough, im sure even half cut i could write a dex.
Even fething slaughtered i could spell scouts

The results of the poll are telling. Phil has written many good codices. It looks like a simple mistake to me and I would never go so far as to try capitalizing on it in the of RaW. Still it's very interesting to hear what the RaW advocates have to say about it.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Still it's very interesting to hear what the RaW advocates have to say about it.

By "Strict RAW", there is no "Scout" rule, only "Scouts", so "Scout" does nothing.
However, IMHO, it is so blindingly obvious that "Scout" is meant to be "Scouts" that anyone wanting to play "Scout" as having no effect is just being TFG for the sake of it.

YMMV. Warning, may contain Opinion. Do not feed after midnight. Warranty void in Tennessee.

Gwar! wrote:No, he is far to coherent and qualified. I guess we are gonna have to just start the Jervis Cloning Program again.

too*

I will play assuming only what opponent reads.

I will also point out to my opponent that debatable rules are left out of my list.

Generally my opponents will play as they like, which includes my restrictions but not theirs. My gaming group instead sides with the restrictive views of their own rules as well.

anticitizen013 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, he is far to coherent and qualified. I guess we are gonna have to just start the Jervis Cloning Program again.

too*

I see someone missed the subtle joke.