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 snooggums on 04/21/2006 10:25 AM

My guess is because that is how mauleed wants to play, so he will argue it to death. Ghaz is correct, the same way a rhino can only be fielded as an attachement to a unit (because that is the only way it says it can be fielded) the command squad can only be fielded with a listed character.

mauleed, please do the premise and conclusion explination that is so obviously lets you field the unit alone. 

That's a complete jackazz thing to say. I have never fielded a command squad without the attached IC, and frankly I don't care how it's played. . While I'm sure it's lots of fun to simply attack my character instead of come up with an intelligent argument, here it's only going to make you look like a moron. Remember, I'm the guy that doesn't let my Tigurius model fear out to 24" because fear has no range.

Anyone that ever questions my ethics in relationship to the rules is automatically a boob and a nitwit. I dare say your exactly the kind of [PERSON] that actually believes GW when they explain why they don't really need to make an unambiguous rule set.

Posted By mauleed on 04/21/2006 12:57 PM

 

Anyone that ever questions my ethics in relationship to the rules is automatically a boob and a nitwit.

Obviously it couldn't be possible that personal views are clouding your judgement.  

P2 is missing the part of the entry that actually lists how it can be fielded with a character. Since it does not list both ways, you would not be able to field it on it's own.

P1 tells how it can be fielded without a character.

Posted By snooggums on 04/21/2006 1:31 PM

Posted By mauleed on 04/21/2006 12:57 PM

Obviously it couldn't be possible that personal views are clouding your judgement.  

P2 is missing the part of the entry that actually lists how it can be fielded with a character. Since it does not list both ways, you would not be able to field it on it's own.

It's my P2, and it'll include whatever I like. It's true, and supports my conclusion, and that ends that.

The rest of your idiotic input doesn't refute it. And that's the point captain [FRIENDLY]. You're supposed to refute one of my premises, or show how it doesn't support my conclusion, or else, and this is my favorite option, just shut [EDITED] up.

And again, you [INAPPROPRIATE INSULT] I have no personal view on this. I don't care how it's played, and even if I did, I'd simply play it however the rules said.

Edit: Turns out there's a page 2. Nothing new to add

P1. The Command Squad has a specific limitation in it's entry on how it may be fielded.

P2. Specific rules for how a unit may be fielded will override those rules on page 27 of Codex Space Marines.

Conclusion: The Command Squad entry specifically states you may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. They do not state that you may take a Command Squad as a standalone unit.

So just like the sidebar in Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters requires you to field an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord to field an assassin so to does the Command Squad entry require that they accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. If your conclusion were to hold up, we'd be able to field assassins without an Inquisitor present.

The problem here is that it's not clear what rule the SM Command squad "you may" is overriding. It's obviously overriding the inability to combine two force org selections into one. The wording provides an additional option for the command squad, not a limitation.

You wonder how many problems would be solved if GW had only inserted the word, "only" into the rule...

"So just like the sidebar in Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters requires you to field an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord to field an assassin so to does the Command Squad entry require that they accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. If your conclusion were to hold up, we'd be able to field assassins without an Inquisitor present."

You really really need to drop this aspect of your argument; it has diddly to do with squat. All you are pointing out here is that in the witchhunters codex they elaborated appropriately, and in the SMC they didn't.
WH codex even has said elaboration boxed aside with IMPORTANT: in it. If the CS entry had such an obvious and clear cut qualification next to it, you'd be right, and moreover there'd be no argument. However such limitations are quite clearly not present, regaurdless of how much it irks you or anyone else.
May does NOT = may ONLY. and your own reference to the assassin entry quite clearly illustrates that.

Ed, stop the direct personal attacks. It's completely inapprpriate. You are free to say the argument is dumb, but not the person. Posts edited. You have been warned. Don't go down this road again.

P1. The Command Squad has a specific limitation in it's entry on how it may be fielded.

P2. Specific rules for how a unit may be fielded will override those rules on page 27 of Codex Space Marines.

Conclusion: The Command Squad entry specifically states you may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. They do not state that you may take a Command Squad as a standalone unit.

P1 is false. This is not a limitation. It's a option to buy a second unit attached to the first unit within the same force org selection. Just like you can take a Landraider with certain squads.

The fact that you are given the option to take a Landraider with certain squads does not negate the Landraider's ability to be taken as a standalone HS choice, which it has due to having its own separate listing under Heavy Support.

The command squad has its own separate listing under HQ units. It also may be taken as a unit upgrade/option as noted in the rule you are quoting. There is nothing in the rule you are quoting which contradicts (and therefore overrides) the option granted on page 27, which is to take the units listed to fill the appropriate force org slots.

So just like the sidebar in Codex Daemonhunters and Codex Witch Hunters requires you to field an Inquisitor or an Inquisitor Lord to field an assassin so to does the Command Squad entry require that they accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain. If your conclusion were to hold up, we'd be able to field assassins without an Inquisitor present.

Thunderkiss has already demolished this. Codex: DH has the exact kind of restriction you are pretending C:SM has, and when we look at the difference in wording the contrast is obvious.

Posted by Thunderkiss on 04/23/2006 8:54 AM
You really really need to drop this aspect of your argument; it has diddly to do with squat. All you are pointing out here is that in the witchhunters codex they elaborated appropriately, and in the SMC they didn't.

Wrong. Both show the circumstance required to take the unit in question. Just because one is worded a little more specifically doesn't mean that it has 'diddly do with squat', thank you. Just because you think it's unclear doesn't mean it does not exist.

Posted by Mannahnin on 04/23/2006 1:44 PM
P1 is false. This is not a limitation. It's a option to buy a second unit attached to the first unit within the same force org selection. Just like you can take a Landraider with certain squads.

And exactly why isn't it a limitation. It tells you exactly when you may field a Command Squad. When may you field a Command Squad? As directly quoted from page 29 of Codex Space Marines "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain".  Sure sounds like a restriction to me by telling you the only circumstances in which you can take a Command Squad, just like Codex Daemonhunters tells you the only circumstances in which you may take an assassin. 

Additionally, it is not an option to buy a second unit either.  The option to buy the second unit is in the army list entries for the Commander, Librarian and Chaplain.

You know what surprises me about this little argument? Nobody has actually looked at what's DIRECTLY ACROSS from the command squad entry in the codex. That being the Commanders.

Under every commander entry it states (in bold letters no less) Command Squad and then follows with rules saying they may lead command squads (of various types).

It's pretty darned obvious that the lead in paragraph of both the power armor command squad and terminator command squad are the other side to the same coin.

The commander rules state "he leads them"... and the command squad rules state "Yep, he leads us." I really can't see HOW anyone can argue otherwise. It's commonsense people (and anyone that argues there's no such thing as common sense should go play in the freeway right now and prove my point).

A question: the Tactical Squad entry says that the squad 'may be equipped with...grenades'. Ghaz, would you mind stating whether or not you think that all Tactical Squads must be equipped with grenades, and, if not, how this situation differs from the Command Squad situation? Likewise, must they take Rhinos?

To adapt your argument -
P1. The Tactical Squad has a specific limitation in its entry on how it may be fielded - with Rhinos. (true insofar as your P1 is true)

P2. Specific rules for how a unit may be fielded will override those rules on page 27 of Codex Space Marines.

Conclusion: The Tactical Squad entry specifically states that Tactical Squads may be fielded with Rhinos.  They do not state that you may take a Tactical Squad as a standalone unit, and so you can't.

Uh, there's more than one meaning of the word 'may'. The use of the word 'may' in the Tactical Squad entry is pretty clear as it appears under the unit's options.

Additionally, there are no further qualifiers on the Tactical Squad as there are with the Command Squad. It simply states that they may take a Rhino, period. End of sentence. The Command Squad has the further qualifier that you may take a Command Squad "... to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain".

Uh, there's more than one meaning of the word 'may'.

Thank you for agreeing.

What was the argument about, again?

Nowhere does it say that the squad is led by a commander. It says it "may accompany a commander, librarian, or chaplain."

"What was the argument about, again?"

you know, one of those he said, he said deals.

Posted By General Nuke Em on 04/23/2006 7:49 PM
Nowhere does it say that the squad is led by a commander. It says it "may accompany a commander, librarian, or chaplain."

Uh, check the Commander army list entry.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/23/2006 5:40 PM
Uh, there's more than one meaning of the word 'may'.

this is almost as good as Bill Clinton asking for clarification of the word 'is'

@Ghaz: although I agree with you about how it SHOULD be played and would probably have an anurism if I were to see a tourney judge rule someone fielding a command squad without a commander was alright, this can be lawyered either way because of the fact that there is more than one meaning for the word may.

Ghaz, I agree that the word 'may' has different meanings in different situations. However, the word 'may' never excludes possibilities by itself. You are implying that the word 'may' by itself excludes other possibilities, when in reality the word 'may' must be used with exclusive or negative modifiers such as 'only' or 'not' in order to exclude possibilities..<?

Here is the actual wording in the codex:

"You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain."

Here is what you are trying to imply:

"You may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain."

This shows exactly why the use of the Inquisitor/Assassin combination actually supports the belief that you may take a Command Squad by itself.  Here is the actual wording in the Daemonhunters codex:

"Death-Cult Assassins may only be chosen if an Inquisitor Lord or Inquisitor is also part of the force."

Page 27 of the Space Marine codex shows the exact set of permissive rules that allow us to select a unit.  The codex permits the player to select any entry in the codex army list subject to the restrictions of the FOC and any restrictions or limits for choosing that specific unit.  I'm sure we can all agree up to this point, and the main debate comes when determining the specific rules for the Command Squad.  At this point, the Command Squad is a valid choice according to the rules listed on page 27 subject to restrictions listed within the army list entry.  Your claim is that the Command Squad selection is restricted in the first sentence describing the entry, but the use of the word 'may' in that sentence does not exclude the possibility of taking the Command Squad by itself.

Here is a quick breakdown of the logic, with the use of a permissive rules set, that shows how you may to take the Command Squad as a separate choice.  In this case all selections will represent a general example.

Rule: You may select any color crayon from this box subject to the specific rules of the crayons.

Crayons in the Box: red crayon, blue crayon

Specifc Rule for Red Crayon: A red crayon may be accompanied by a blue crayon, and this will count as one choice.

Specific Rule for Blue Crayon: You may take a blue crayon to accompany a red crayon.

So using the rule set here, which are analogous to the rules in the codex, I am going to choose my crayons. I choose a blue crayon.  No where in the rules does it say that I may not choose a blue crayon by itself, or that I may only choose the blue crayon to accompany a red crayon, and the permissive nature of the first rule allows me to select it as a choice in the first place.

So in premise/conclusion form:

P1: You may select any entry in the army list to fill a slot in the Force Organization Chart, subject to the restrictions and limitations listed for that choice and the army as a whole.

Support for P1: All of Page 27 in the SM Codex.

P2: The listing in the Command Squad entry does not state any restrictions or limitations that would prevent taking the unit by itself.

Support for P2: Here's where reading comprehension becomes important.  It is imperative that you understand the fundamental difference between the phrases 'may' and 'may only'.  The entry specifically states that "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Command, Librarian, or Chaplain."  There is no exclusion at all within that sentence.  Here is what a sentence looks like when it excludes the possibility of taking a unit unless a condition is met: "Death-Cult Assassins may only be chosen if an Inquisitor Lord or Inquisitor is also part of the force."

Conclusion: You may take a Command Squad as a separate HQ choice.

If you think otherwise it is probably because you either don't believe that was the intention of the developers, and that is obscuring your judgment, or you don't understand the difference between 'may' and 'may only' or the difference between the Command Squad entry and the Assassins entry.

[And exactly why isn't it a limitation. It tells you exactly when you may field a Command Squad. When may you field a Command Squad? As directly quoted from page 29 of Codex Space Marines "You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian or Chaplain".] - Ghaz

By that same logic:

When may you field a Veteran Squad? As directly quoted from page 32 of Codex Space Marines ".........."

When may you field a Tactical Squad? As directly quoted from page 34 of Codex Space Marines ".........."

When may you field a [general entry]? As directly quoted from page [x] of Codex Space Marines "........."

Your logic leads to the conclusion that you may only take a unit when it permissively states that within the unit entry, in which case, you cannot take any of the selections in the army list.

The fact that you can take any of those choices in the first place is located on page 27.  The answer for the question: "When may you field a [general entry]?" is found on page 27.  The specific entries list limitations on the selection.  The fact that they are in the army list in the first place is what allows you to take them.

So again the order of logic is this:

1.) Page 27: You may field entries listed in the army list.

2.) Page 29: Command Squad entry in the army list.

Summary of Rules for the Command Squad:

1.) You may field a Command Squad. (Page 27)

2.) You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. (Page 29)

You cannot explain how (2) explicitly prevents (1) without implying designer intention or putting words in the codex that aren't there in the first place.

[When may you field a Command Squad?]  This question never appears in the codex.  And it's fortunate that it doesn't, otherwise questions like [When may you field a Tactical Squad?] would not be specifically answered and imply you cannot take those units.

Posted by Tacit on 04/26/2006 11:14 PM
Summary of Rules for the Command Squad:
1.) You may field a Command Squad. (Page 27)
2.) You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. (Page 29)
You cannot explain how (2) explicitly prevents (1) without implying designer intention or putting words in the codex that aren't there in the first place.

Because 2 is the more specific rule and therefore it overrides 1. End of discussion

[Summary of Rules for the Command Squad:
1.) You may field a Command Squad. (Page 27)
2.) You may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian. (Page 29)
You cannot explain how (2) explicitly prevents (1) without implying designer intention or putting words in the codex that aren't there in the first place.] - Me

[Because 2 is the more specific rule and therefore it overrides 1. End of discussion] - Ghaz

You totally missed the point.  (2) must prevent (1) or state that (1) is not allowed.  You have no evidence or support to show that you may not take a Command Squad separately.  (2) is definitely more specific.  But does (2) state that (1) is false, or does (2) preclude the possibility of (1)? Absolutely not.  (2) Applies to the interaction of a Command Squad with a Commander, Chaplain, or Librarian.  No where in the entire sentence that you hold as your sole support does it state that you may not take a Command Squad separately.

From a rules compliance standpoint taking a Command Squad alone is legal.

Here's how it works:

1.) I field a Command Squad.

2.) I comply with rules on page 27 and 29.

3.) Done.

 

Look at these statements:

1.) I may field entries in the army list

2.) The Command Squad is an entry in the army list

3.) I field the Command Squad.

4.) I may take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain.

Statement (4) does not negate statements (1), (2), or (3).  Statement (4) tells me how I may take the Command Squad to accompany another HQ choice.

Here is what you want statement (4) to say and what it explicitly does not say:

I may only take a Command Squad to accompany a Commander, Librarian, or Chaplain.

I may not take a Command Squad separately.

Unless you can show where those statements are explicitly made within the codex, then it truly is "End of Discussion".

2 has to CONTRADICT 1 to override it. It does not contradict it. The fact that it says "may" as opposed to C: DH's "may only" only makes it even more clear.

Ghaz, are you okay? Seriously.

You don't have to be right all the time. Even Ed knows how to admit when he's obviously wrong.

Posted By Mannahnin on 04/26/2006 11:32 PM

 Even Ed knows how to admit when he's obviously wrong.

Oh, horse hockey.  I don't recall him EVER admitting when he's wrong.

I don't recall him EVER admitting when he's wrong.

I do. It has happened. Perhaps rarely. Regardless, in the 6 Ven Dread thread, IIRC, he initially thought it was cheating, but upon further review, it was discovered that it was at least dubiously legal.

If the marine command squad doesn't need a leader then neither does a Hive Tyrant Retinue, since it only says that a Non-winged Tyrant MAY choose them to form a unit with the Tyrant, but they are listed as a seperate entry. And you can take two of them!

No I personally don't think the command squad can, the reason has been explained by others already and doesn't need repeating.

Incorrect. Unlike the command squad, the tyrant guard is not listed as a separate HQ choice.

Posted By rank on 04/27/2006 7:28 AM
Incorrect. Unlike the command squad, the tyrant guard is not listed as a separate HQ choice.

Separate page, it has it's own title. How is this different than the marine command squads separate HQ Choice?

Posted By bigchris1313 on 04/27/2006 1:56 AM

I don't recall him EVER admitting when he's wrong.

I do. It has happened. Perhaps rarely. Regardless, in the 6 Ven Dread thread, IIRC, he initially thought it was cheating, but upon further review, it was discovered that it was at least dubiously legal.

He's definitely willing to step up to the plate. He's just almost never wrong. I've seen him be wrong twice - which is an error rate I would personally be ecstatic with.

To keep myself out of the Mauleed fan club, I must also note that he does at times cherry pick the debates he gets into. Of course, that also meets a good rule of "if you don't have something intelligent to say, don't talk."

Tacit - bravo. Four posts, and an excellent breakdown of this matter.