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.

Orders do not have the same wording. Orders take place "in the shooting Phase". Furthermore, issuing an order is an action the model must do "An officer may attempt to issue orders [...] To issue an order the officer must declare [...]. Logan's rule says "you may choose". It is not tied to a model so is not an action that needs permission. Thus I would say you get to choose each turn. If it were meant to be each SW player turn, it would have said SW Player turn, instead of "turn", which means each player turn, as per page 9.

Seriously though, whether they put the thought into it or not gets into a RAI discussion. As in, did they mean to make it work like it works as written? No idea, I just know that as written you can't duplicate psychic powers, which is different than not being allowed to duplicate psychic power combinations.

Ah but the way I see it, "Psychic Powers" refers to the Powers each model selects, not the individual powers themselves. And you must agree that the rules are written by normal guys, not English professors It may be a case of incorrect grammar leading to unintended RaW, but I am still not 100% convinced, as I pointed out just now

While the rules are not written by English professors, they are also not written by normal guys. These guys have been writing rules professionally for years.

I understand the confusion you are referring to. I believe the sentence is such that you cannot duplicate powers, rather than combination's of powers as you are thinking may be possible.

Notice that none of the generic HQ's are allowed more than one saga, so it is correct that saga is singluar in the sentence. All priests get multiple powers though, so powers has to be referred to in plural.

I would say it is clear that powers and wargear are not tied together. I understand the perceived ambiguity in whether duplication of psychic powers is restricted by individual power, or by specific combination's of powers though. Knowing that a dice roll of 1 and 3 is considered different than a dice roll of 3 and 1, if we go by combos rather than individuals, what stops me from saying one priest has Living Lightning and Jaws of the World Wolf, and the second priest has Jaws of the World Wolf and Living Lightning? I can see the validity of that argument.

As to orders, I think you missed the general rule I was getting at, which is nothing works in the opponents turn without specifically saying "works in opponents turn", or something similarly explicit.

Kaaihn wrote:I would say it is clear that powers and wargear are not tied together. I understand the perceived ambiguity in whether duplication of psychic powers is restricted by individual power, or by specific combination's of powers though. Knowing that a dice roll of 1 and 3 is considered different than a dice roll of 3 and 1, if we go by combos rather than individuals, what stops me from saying one priest has Living Lightning and Jaws of the World Wolf, and the second priest has Jaws of the World Wolf and Living Lightning? I can see the validity of that argument.

Set Theroy.

For this discussion:
A = {JotWW}
B = {Living Lightning}
C = {Storm Caller}

Rune Priest 1 has the Powers A ∪ B, Rune Priest 2 has B ∪ A. Via the commutative laws of Set Theory, they are equal, so it is an Illegal selection.
If it was instead, Rune Priest 1 has the Powers A ∪ B, Rune Priest 2 has B ∪ C Via the basic laws of Set Theory, they are not equal, so it is an legal selection.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:I would say it is clear that powers and wargear are not tied together. I understand the perceived ambiguity in whether duplication of psychic powers is restricted by individual power, or by specific combination's of powers though. Knowing that a dice roll of 1 and 3 is considered different than a dice roll of 3 and 1, if we go by combos rather than individuals, what stops me from saying one priest has Living Lightning and Jaws of the World Wolf, and the second priest has Jaws of the World Wolf and Living Lightning? I can see the validity of that argument.

Set Theroy.

For this discussion:
A = {JotWW}
B = {Living Lightning}
C = {Storm Caller}

Rune Priest 1 has the Powers A ∪ B, Rune Priest 2 has B ∪ A. Via the commutative laws of Set Theory, they are equal, so it is an Illegal selection.
If it was instead, Rune Priest 1 has the Powers A ∪ B, Rune Priest 2 has B ∪ C Via the basic laws of Set Theory, they are not equal, so it is an legal selection.

And yet when calculating odds of dice, they are considered separate results. So what applies to this specific rule? We don't know, they wrote it just ambiguous enough to keep an argument going forever about whether you cannot duplicate powers, or whether the restriction is on duplication of power combinations.

Really for me it boils down to the fact that combinations in the sentence is only for wargear. Powers not having it, it isn't referring to powers combinations. "Psychic Powers" and "Psychic Power combinations" are two separate things with different meanings.

Unfortunately I see equal reasoning why RAI could be either way, so I'll stick to no duplicate powers in my games, and my opponent is welcome to dispute and ask to D6 until GW answers the question decisively.

Kaaihn wrote:The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

Kaaihn, you're talking out of your hat here. The reason why nearly everyone puts it in is because it's not "incorrect grammar." The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

The big book of grammar that your wife is using (and her editor) just happen to be ones that give one version of the rule. I can find probably just as many books that give the other version, and even more, more progressive ones like Hacker, that acknowledge the controversy and list the rule as optional or make a persuasive argument that omitting the comma can lead to ambiguity--as is the case here.

Unlike GW rules, grammar has no single authority that can decide what are and are not the rules. One style guide's "incorrect" is another guide's "required."

Actually I'm surprised to find you taking the hard line on grammar "rules." I figured you would be the one who would be the first to acknowledge ambiguity, context and the audience as important in decisions about comma rules.

[edit] btw I agree with you on the reading of duplicate powers restriction.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:The problem is probably 99% of the English speaking population get this rule of grammar wrong. In a comma delineated list in sentence form, the second to last item should not have a comma. It is incorrect grammar to include it, but damn near everyone puts it in and thinks a sentence is wrong to not have it.

Kaaihn, you're talking out of your hat here. The reason why nearly everyone puts it in is because it's not "incorrect grammar." The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

The big book of grammar that your wife is using (and her editor) just happen to be ones that give one version of the rule. I can find probably just as many books that give the other version, and even more, more progressive ones like Hacker, that acknowledge the controversy and list the rule as optional or make a persuasive argument that omitting the comma can lead to ambiguity--as is the case here.

Unlike GW rules, grammar has no single authority that can decide what are and are not the rules. One style guide's "incorrect" is another guide's "required."

Well let's see, the usage of 'talking out of your hat' would be if what I was saying is utter rubbish. Since you just acknowledged that by at least some style guides I am correct, I guess I can't be talking utter rubbish. Just thought I would point that out.

Your own post says that the inclusion is a controversy, meaning the exclusion is the norm. Some people wanting to change the rule because it confuses people doesn't have any bearing on my point that the inclusion or exclusion of the comma doesn't change the sentence in question.

Saying the powers are linked to the wargear as a total combination because of the lack of a comma is completely incorrect. Whether the comma is there or not, it is still a list of three separate entities. That is what I said was clear.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Actually I'm surprised to find you taking the hard line on grammar "rules." I figured you would be the one who would be the first to acknowledge ambiguity, context and the audience as important in decisions about comma rules.

I acknowledge ambiguity where I see it existing (see my statement about whether powers can duplicate versus power combinations duplicating for an acknowledgment of ambiguity directly relevant here), and I reference context where the context is necessary to the understanding of the sentence. I already stated what the context is here, which is that it is a list of abilities being referenced. I haven't ignored any context.

Flavius Infernus wrote:[edit] btw I agree with you on the reading of duplicate powers restriction.

Glad we at least agree on something

Kaaihn, by your own admission the pluralization of Psychic Powers to denote that there are at least 2 powers on each Rune Priest. This would then imply that it requires more than 1 Power to satisfy this exclusion. Otherwise they would have not pluralized "Powers"

More than 1 of the same Psychic Powers sounds like both of them to me.

if it had said Psychic "Power" instead, then I would agree with you.

Gwar! wrote:Lord of Tempests: What happens if the Space Wolf Player goes Second?

RAW seems fairly clear that two powers are rubbish. RAI also seems fairly clear that it lasts for your turn then your opponent's turn. Yay for no standardisation of terms!

Kaaihn wrote:Should the Rune Priest make a shooting attack at a target that has line of sight to the chooser marker, he may treat his BS as one higher than normal.
An infantry model may only pivot to face his target in his shooting phase. So an enemy infantry (with head modeled straight forward) standing with his back to the chooser marker by RAW does not have LOS to that marker. The Rune Priest would not get a +1 BS for shooting that infantry model.

Do infantry have limited line of sight? Or 360 degree line of sight? The BRB is strangely reticent on this subject. The whole "turning to face" bit implies that they do have a limited LOS but that's all we've got.
Can we model little shoulder-mounted rear-view mirrors in order to get 360 degree LOS? I think I'd play this as 180 degree LOS but that's just me.

Kaaihn wrote:Page 49, Bjorn the Fell-Handed, Ancient Tactician: ...can reroll the dice to see who picks deployment zones first
Technically useless. In none of the three missions do you roll a die to see who picks deployment zones first. You roll the die to see who goes first or second. The order in which you choose the deployment zone is a condition of whether you go first or second.

{facepalm} Oh my god. Even for GW that's completely slowed.

Scott-S6 wrote:Do infantry have limited line of sight? Or 360 degree line of sight? The BRB is strangely reticent on this subject. The whole "turning to face" bit implies that they do have a limited LOS but that's all we've got.
Can we model little shoulder-mounted rear-view mirrors in order to get 360 degree LOS? I think I'd play this as 180 degree LOS but that's just me.

It never defines what LoS Infantry have. Some people play it 360, others don't.

{facepalm} Oh my god. Even for GW that's completely slowed.

Yeah, it is kind of sad.

Someone giev me £64m so I can buy all the GW Stocks and fix it!

Not strictly a RAW issue, although it seems to me Blood Claws who are within 6" of an enemy unit in the shooting phase would be able to run, preventing them from launching an assault.


I'm not sure but the choice of the term "enters play" for wolf scouts seems weird, I would personally describe an outflanking unit as entering play when making it's move onto the table rather than passing the reserves roll. Make of that one what you will because I will admit entering play is never clearly defined either way for a unit outflanking.


"A Lone Wolf does not concede a kill point if he dies in battle" what if he fails a dangerous terrain test? or dies in some other unfortunate circumstances.


A number of rules are based on the targets toughness, the Lone Wolf ability to Re-roll failed hits for example works on things of T5 or greater. It's not exactly clear how this would interact with a model such as a plague marine T4(5), is it based on the unmodified Toughness or the modified one?


Arjac Rockfist can re-roll to hit against models with the Independant Character rule. How does this effect someone such as for example Commander Shadowsun when accompanied by drones.

"Independent Character: Except when accompanied by her drones, Commander Shadowsun is an independent character."

She has a rule called Independent Character, but is not an Independent Character in terms of the BRB, so, does he get the re-roll?


I know most of these are pretty knitpicky, but most of the major stuff has already been covered.

Not strictly a RAW issue, although it seems to me Blood Claws who are within 6" of an enemy unit in the shooting phase would be able to run, preventing them from launching an assault

Hmm, at first I was going to say "If you cannot shoot you cannot run", but then I realised this is not the case, as BS0 Models may run, and Shaken Walkers may also run. So yeah, nice catch there

I'm not sure but the choice of the term "enters play" for wolf scouts seems weird, I would personally describe an outflanking unit as entering play when making it's move onto the table rather than passing the reserves roll. Make of that one what you will because I will admit entering play is never clearly defined either way for a unit outflanking.

Yeah Its a bit fuzzy but what the unit does is clear i suppose.

"A Lone Wolf does not concede a kill point if he dies in battle" what if he fails a dangerous terrain test? or dies in some other unfortunate circumstances.

Nope, RaW he does not give a KP. Obviously he died a Glorious Death against a Shrubbery!

A number of rules are based on the targets toughness, the Lone Wolf ability to Re-roll failed hits for example works on things of T5 or greater. It's not exactly clear how this would interact with a model such as a plague marine T4(5), is it based on the unmodified Toughness or the modified one?

You use Modified toughness for everything except Instant Death and effects that specifically state Unmodified Toughness.

Arjac Rockfist can re-roll to hit against models with the Independent Character rule. How does this effect someone such as for example Commander Shadowsun when accompanied by drones.
"Independent Character: Except when accompanied by her drones, Commander Shadowsun is an independent character."

She has a rule called Independent Character, but is not an Independent Character in terms of the BRB, so, does he get the re-roll?

If the IC has a Retinue, the IC counts as an Upgrade Character, so cannot be "Picked out" so Arjac's controller never gets to assign where he hits, so he has to roll to hit against the unit, so his ability has no effect.

Kaaihn wrote:While the rules are not written by English professors, they are also not written by normal guys. These guys have been writing rules professionally for years.

By comparison, the Detroit Lions are professional football players. And they lost all their games last year (and the first 2 this year). Just doing something for years, doesn't make you good at it. GW does an adequate job of writing rules. But, they don't do a great job (Privateer Press does a great job, but it also results in 100 page FAQs at the end of MkI). What's clear is that the rules aren't clear. The rule about the same sagas, psychic abilities, or wargear is not clear. It can be interpreted that as long as RP 1 has powers A and B, and RP 2 has A and C, that is okay. Is it okay to have two WGBL with TH and SS, but one also has meltabombs? It's also possible to interpret it that your HQs cannot duplicate anything - so your WGBL can only ever have 1 frostblade (even if there's four of them), and only 1 WP can wear TDA, etc.

Gwar read my sig.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:Gwar read my sig.

Au contraire, I am going to. Just as soon as I find my Speedos...

Demogerg wrote:Kaaihn, by your own admission the pluralization of Psychic Powers to denote that there are at least 2 powers on each Rune Priest. This would then imply that it requires more than 1 Power to satisfy this exclusion. Otherwise they would have not pluralized "Powers"

More than 1 of the same Psychic Powers sounds like both of them to me.

if it had said Psychic "Power" instead, then I would agree with you.

No, it doesn't imply that. If it said just Power, there would be people arguing the opposite of what is being argued now, I guarantee it. The argument would come that "Priest one and two don't have the same power, they have a different combination of power, which is totally different".

Both sound bat-gak crazy to someone that doesn't agree that the sentence represents that. Its just an ambiguous way of wording it, and hopefully will be one of the things that gets FAQ'ed. As for RAI on it, I can see it being restricted to no duplicates for balance purposes, but on the other hand I see it as equally likely that they wouldn't have placed hidden restrictions in the codex, such as if you take Njal you may not take a Priest, or you may not take four Priests as your four HQ choices.

We'll see when the FAQ comes out, there is not going to be a "winner" to this argument until then in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Do infantry have limited line of sight? Or 360 degree line of sight? The BRB is strangely reticent on this subject. The whole "turning to face" bit implies that they do have a limited LOS but that's all we've got.
Can we model little shoulder-mounted rear-view mirrors in order to get 360 degree LOS? I think I'd play this as 180 degree LOS but that's just me.

It never defines what LoS Infantry have. Some people play it 360, others don't.

{facepalm} Oh my god. Even for GW that's completely slowed.

Yeah, it is kind of sad.

Someone giev me £64m so I can buy all the GW Stocks and fix it!

It does, actually. The TLOS rules define LOS as being from the unit's eyes, taken from their true position and location. We know how to determine if something is in LOS of an infantry model.

We then have an additional rule, which is that infantry may turn in the shooting phase to face their target. So then all that's left is to look up the definition of target. Here's the RAW vs RAI part: The definition of target tells us that if it is not in LOS, it cannot be your target. If it isn't your target, you can't turn to face it in the shooting phase.

RAI: Facing doesn't matter.
RAW: It can't be your target if you can't see it, and you may only turn in the shooting phase towards your target.

By RAW Infantry (and walkers) have a blind spot. I've never met anyone that enforces that bit of RAW though. Giving someone's opponent an advantage based on LOS could make it start to crop up was what I was pointing out.

Kaaihn wrote:We'll see when the FAQ comes out, there is not going to be a "winner" to this argument until then in my opinion.

Yup, its one of these things that need a propper clarification, because the rules are unclear.

If they come out with an FAQ stating "Njarls Tempest works until his next turn", that's an example of an FAQ directly contradicting clear RaW, which is what pisses me off the most about GW.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:We'll see when the FAQ comes out, there is not going to be a "winner" to this argument until then in my opinion.

Yup, its one of these things that need a propper clarification, because the rules are unclear.

If they come out with an FAQ stating "Njarls Tempest works until his next turn", that's an example of an FAQ directly contradicting clear RaW, which is what pisses me off the most about GW.

See, that stuff doesn't bother me. I think it's because my view is that the rules are not perfect, nor were they vetted to be. So I'm glad when they clarify something, even if it's just a clarification online rather than a print change.

In a perfect world, they would up their writing standard and vet these things properly, as well as changing to an online Errata model rather than Errata and FAQ answers. Make the FAQ answers have the same weight as Errata without changing the print would be a good step forward. GW seems to be dead set against forcing people to use the internet though. With the latest print run of a codex and rulebook in hand, there is nothing online that you must know about to play 40K. Changing from FAQ to online only Errata would change that model though.

I have trouble imagining there are many (if any really) groups where at least one person does not have internet access that would be posting printouts of online only Errata if necessary. Whoever is making the calls on what is published online seems to be a step out of touch with society, technology, and their player base specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drunkspleen wrote:Not strictly a RAW issue, although it seems to me Blood Claws who are within 6" of an enemy unit in the shooting phase would be able to run, preventing them from launching an assault.

I didn't' even notice this got posted. How are you running in a phase that you forgo? It doesn't say you forgo shooting, it says you forgo the phase itself. You can't run, you can't shoot, you can't pick your nose, because you forgo the phase.

If a pack of Blood Claws is within 6" of an enemy model at the beginning of the Shooting phase, that pack will forgo its Shooting phase altogether as it prepares for a devastating charge.

Flavius Infernus wrote:The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

To back up Flavius here (in a less inflammatory manner), he does have a point. All through high school, I was taught to use the "a, b, and c" construct. It was not until I got to college that I was taught to use the "a, b and c" construct. If I remember correctly, this was using guidelines as set out by the Modern Language Association, and they had not been out all that long. I still own two of my high school grammar books, and I have three other style manuals that I got during and after college, and both usages exist.

From what I remember being taught, the MLA version of the grammatical rule was the result of consideration towards publishers. Removing a comma may not seem like it takes up much ink or space on a page, but when you're talking about dozens of potential comma removals over hundreds of pages and thousands to millions of books, the potential savings to the publisher by removing that comma can be surprisingly large.

Here's one that occurs...

Page 50, Ulrik, Wolf Helm of Russ: Any Space Wolves unit that can trace LOS to Ulrik may reroll any failed Morale tests they are called upon to make.

Note that this does not say FRIENDLY Space Wolves, so RAW would your opponent get to reroll in a SW v SW battle?

Slinky wrote:Here's one that occurs...

Page 50, Ulrik, Wolf Helm of Russ: Any Space Wolves unit that can trace LOS to Ulrik may reroll any failed Morale tests they are called upon to make.

Note that this does not say FRIENDLY Space Wolves, so RAW would your opponent get to reroll in a SW v SW battle?

The BRB FAQ deals with this.

Also its another "what LoS do infantry have" issue lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Not strictly a RAW issue, although it seems to me Blood Claws who are within 6" of an enemy unit in the shooting phase would be able to run, preventing them from launching an assault.

I didn't' even notice this got posted. How are you running in a phase that you forgo? It doesn't say you forgo shooting, it says you forgo the phase itself. You can't run, you can't shoot, you can't pick your nose, because you forgo the phase.

If a pack of Blood Claws is within 6" of an enemy model at the beginning of the Shooting phase, that pack will forgo its Shooting phase altogether as it prepares for a devastating charge.

Hmm, that's a bit iffy. Definitely ambiguous. Does it mean it never goes through the phase or does it mean they do nothing during that phase?

Gwar! wrote:

Slinky wrote:Here's one that occurs...

Page 50, Ulrik, Wolf Helm of Russ: Any Space Wolves unit that can trace LOS to Ulrik may reroll any failed Morale tests they are called upon to make.

Note that this does not say FRIENDLY Space Wolves, so RAW would your opponent get to reroll in a SW v SW battle?

The BRB FAQ deals with this.

Also its another "what LoS do infantry have" issue lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kaaihn wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Not strictly a RAW issue, although it seems to me Blood Claws who are within 6" of an enemy unit in the shooting phase would be able to run, preventing them from launching an assault.

I didn't' even notice this got posted. How are you running in a phase that you forgo? It doesn't say you forgo shooting, it says you forgo the phase itself. You can't run, you can't shoot, you can't pick your nose, because you forgo the phase.

If a pack of Blood Claws is within 6" of an enemy model at the beginning of the Shooting phase, that pack will forgo its Shooting phase altogether as it prepares for a devastating charge.

Hmm, that's a bit iffy. Definitely ambiguous. Does it mean it never goes through the phase or does it mean they do nothing during that phase?

Forgo: To abstain or refrain from; do without. Whether you say they don't get their phase, or whether you say they do nothing during it the end result is the same. They don't run.

I mentioned the Wolf Helm for Ulrik already by the way as a LOS thing, and the enemy use of your wargear is covered by the main rulebook already.

Gwar! wrote:-Lord of Tempests: What happens if the Space Wolf Player goes Second?
-What does "Counts as Troops" mean exactly (obvious I know but SOME people find it difficult)
-Blood Claws who are within 6" of an enemy unit in the shooting phase would be able to run, preventing them from launching an assault.

I've picked three as I can quite easily answer them.

Nothing reeeally goes wrong if you assume that all those funky tempest powers happen throughout the other guys turn. So, go with that. Sorted.

Counts as troops counts as Troops in the FOC. As that this the main reference. It doesnt mention counts as Infantry or Cavalry or Scoring, simply Troops. Easy to comprehend and does not break the game in any way.

Blood claws actually "Forgo" its shooting phase "altogether" which would preclude them from doing anything during that phase. This includes running. In this instance (there are some el-dodgy writtings in this new arcane codex) its quite clear if you read the rules, in my opinion.

Razerous wrote:Blood claws actually "Forgo" its shooting phase "altogether" which would preclude them from doing anything during that phase. This includes running. In this instance (there are some el-dodgy writtings in this new arcane codex) its quite clear if you read the rules, in my opinion.

This I agree with actually.

Here is one, If Logan is in the Army, and you attach a Wolf Guard to a Long Fang Pack, does that mean if the WG Pack Leader is within 3" of an objective you control it?

It may be a Wolf Guard, but Logan says "Wolf Guard Units count as Troops".

Has anyone mentioned Saga of the Beastslayer versus models with modified toughness? Example: Plague Marines, Marines on Bikes.

What about how ICs on Thunderwulf Mounts treat the stat bonuses? Looking at the entry for TW cav they appear to be true stats rather than modified stats, but it's not explicitly stated that they increase the base line.

sourclams wrote:Has anyone mentioned Saga of the Beastslayer versus models with modified toughness? Example: Plague Marines, Marines on Bikes.

T5(4) is considered T5 for everything. Everything except Instant Death. For everything else they are T5.

What about how ICs on Thunderwulf Mounts treat the stat bonuses? Looking at the entry for TW cav they appear to be true stats rather than modified stats, but it's not explicitly stated that they increase the base line.

Page 62 "Adds +1 S, +1 T and +1 Attack to his profile". It modifies the entire Profile. Also, Bikes specifically mention the ID thing, so because Thunderwolf does not, it does not apply.

Gwar, said wolf guard is still a unit, or part of such, so yes, he would be able to capture objectives all on his own

gakky powers: Well, go 1st and you have some effective plans, go 2nd and its a waste of points

Counts as troops: Simple, does what it says. (depending on situation)
If it says wolf guard count as troops with logan present, then they act like troops, count as scoring, etc etc.

Or, does it say anymore? ie: making them in effect like pedro run sterns? if not, then gratz on the scoring unit


PS: we need to start an angry mob to protest and get Bjorn a drop pod option

JD21290 wrote:Or, does it say anymore? ie: making them in effect like pedro run sterns? if not, then gratz on the scoring unit

Exact wording:

THE GREAT WOLF
Wolf Guard units count as Troops in any army that includes Logan Grimnar.

PS: we need to start an angry mob to protest and get Bjorn a drop pod option

Yes, yes we do.

Isn't it funny how any other Marine Players would be screaming at the I3 as a misprint, but the SW players know it's right?

Saldiven wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:The issue about the final comma in a series is currently under debate.

To back up Flavius here (in a less inflammatory manner), he does have a point. All through high school, I was taught to use the "a, b, and c" construct. It was not until I got to college that I was taught to use the "a, b and c" construct. If I remember correctly, this was using guidelines as set out by the Modern Language Association, and they had not been out all that long. I still own two of my high school grammar books, and I have three other style manuals that I got during and after college, and both usages exist.

From what I remember being taught, the MLA version of the grammatical rule was the result of consideration towards publishers. Removing a comma may not seem like it takes up much ink or space on a page, but when you're talking about dozens of potential comma removals over hundreds of pages and thousands to millions of books, the potential savings to the publisher by removing that comma can be surprisingly large.

Not contradicting in the slightest that both ways are correct depending on which style guide you use (although I'm glad I'm not the only one that saw how Flavius wrote his post as inflammatory). Right or wrong is beside the point though on the inclusion of the comma.

The original point is that whether it is there or not, the meaning of the sentence is the same. As it is not wrong to not have the comma, the argument that the sentence has a different meaning because of the lack of the comma is an incorrect argument. The lack of the comma changing the meaning is the specific argument I was addressing.

Exact wording:

THE GREAT WOLF
Wolf Guard units count as Troops in any army that includes Logan Grimnar.

Simple then mate
They function just like a warboss making nobz unit/s troops.
They can make up the mainstay of your army, count as scoring, and generally be heavy priced

Yes, yes we do.

Isn't it funny how any other Marine Players would be screaming at the I3 as a misprint, but the SW players know it's right?

Heh, i think he should be I5
Great warrior throughout life and even when cased in metal, he continues to fight his shiny metal ass off for the pups.
Get this man some steroids and a pod!

Here is one Razerous pointed out for me:
If an IC with Saga of the Hunter joins a Scout Squad, the scouts lose their ability to outflank, making the Hunter rule ineffective.

Ok, perhaps not exactly a RaW issue, but interesting to see that GW either cocked up, or caught something for once