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 know we've hashed this out before with the Meks, Court of the Archon, etc., but I wanted to get a feel for what people think about this scenario.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to "game the system" or "rules lawyer my way to advantage". What I AM trying to do is put together a small format reference codex with one page for each unit entry. As part of this effort, I've hit a snag as I'm not sure what to do with the XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. Does it get its own page, or should it really be included as an optional element of the various Commander pages?

The Core Question: Is the following a legal list?

Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment
HQ - XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team
Troops - Fire Warrior Team
Troops - Fire Warrior Team

The specific wording in question is in the XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team section of the army list and is as follows...

"For each Commander in your army (including Commander Farsight and Commander Shadowsun), you may include one XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. This unit does not take up a Force Organisation slot."

Note that this phrase only appears in the iBooks version (and presumably also in the physical copy). It does not appear to be in the eBook Digital Edition. In the Digital Edition, the Bodyguard Team is presented just as any other HQ. There is no option to take a slotless version along with a Commander.

MY INTERPRETATION:
I see the "you may include" bit to be granting an additional permission on top of the standard permission (take an HQ to fill an HQ slot) granted in the BRB. I don't see any wording rescinding the permission in the BRB. I also see no wording creating a conflict. My take, especially in the context of 7th Edition and its policy of freedom in model selection, is to allow a Bodyguard Team to fill an HQ slot with or without a Commander present.

As you say, already hashed out discussion on this is really two-sided:

A) The wording you have quoted allows you to take the Unit "Slot-less", but nothing stops you from taking it "in a Slot". This will cover pretty much all Body-guard-type Units (including the XV8s)

B) Mainly from RaI of previous editions, these Units require that you take the mentioned Unit for them to "exist" in the first place (Commander).

I am adamant that "B" is the case, both by RaW and HIWPI.
I think a lot are now "A" for RaW but "B" for HYWPI.

Gotcha. So it's going to be the same old tired arguments this time around.

Filter out any RaI arguments and you're left with two permissions to take "retinue units" in two different ways. Whether or not you see a conflict is going to be a personal thing as there is not an explicitly worded conflict. Talk to your friends and don't expect every stranger to be OK with this. Etc. etc.

I would add the bodyguard to your commander page to be honest. To me, taking a bodyguard unit with nobody to guard seems off. If you did run this there would be complaint as the line "you may include" can also be seen as meaning that the body guard unit is not needed to field a commander. So I guess there is no correct answer outside of RaI, as RaW can be taken both ways.

 Brennonjw wrote:
I would add the bodyguard to your commander page to be honest. To me, taking a bodyguard unit with nobody to guard seems off. If you did run this there would be complaint as the line "you may include" can also be seen as meaning that the body guard unit is not needed to field a commander. So I guess there is no correct answer outside of RaI, as RaW can be taken both ways.

I think this is what I'm going to do. I don't see any fluff reason why a Bodyguard Team wouldn't be sent out on combat errands. Surely you can picture a Commander saying "You get the Ethereal to safety. For the Greater Good." before he is cut down or leaves to do some battlefield coordination.

HOWEVER, I understand that people in general can get so wrapped up in a previous edition based confirmation bias that they can't allow for the idea that a retinue unit can be taken without its 'leader'. I don't feel like having this discussion with random strangers in a FLGS... just random strangers online.

You're right, it is unclear, really deserves a FAQ...

However, in the print codex, the Crisis Bodyguard team is in a box on the Commanders page.
It isn't stated that this box is separate to the rest of the HQ section, but it seems to be the intention.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Brennonjw wrote:
I would add the bodyguard to your commander page to be honest. To me, taking a bodyguard unit with nobody to guard seems off. If you did run this there would be complaint as the line "you may include" can also be seen as meaning that the body guard unit is not needed to field a commander. So I guess there is no correct answer outside of RaI, as RaW can be taken both ways.

I think this is what I'm going to do. I don't see any fluff reason why a Bodyguard Team wouldn't be sent out on combat errands. Surely you can picture a Commander saying "You get the Ethereal to safety. For the Greater Good." before he is cut down or leaves to do some battlefield coordination.

HOWEVER, I understand that people in general can get so wrapped up in a previous edition based confirmation bias that they can't allow for the idea that a retinue unit can be taken without its 'leader'. I don't feel like having this discussion with random strangers in a FLGS... just random strangers online.

Makes sense. I wonder how it would work on the table to be able to take a bodyguard with an ethereal. However, a lot of things work from fluff that the rules hate

 Kriswall wrote:
Gotcha. So it's going to be the same old tired arguments this time around.

Filter out any RaI arguments and you're left with two permissions to take "retinue units" in two different ways. Whether or not you see a conflict is going to be a personal thing as there is not an explicitly worded conflict. Talk to your friends and don't expect every stranger to be OK with this. Etc. etc.

Thing is, i don't personally agree with the "Take any Unit you want" being a RaW allowance.

To me the rules quoted above and all the other similar ones are not an option when taking these Units (there is no "i'll take them in a slot the normal way" - IMHO)

"For each you may include"
Or you may not include... but those are the only 2 options for that Unit

I've always gone with the assumption that "you may include" if you have a commander or whatever would also mean "you may not include" if you don't have one. It's like saying "you may drive a car if you have a license". If you don't have a license, you may not drive a car (legally anyways ).

 kingbobbito wrote:
I've always gone with the assumption that "you may include" if you have a commander or whatever would also mean "you may not include" if you don't have one. It's like saying "you may drive a car if you have a license". If you don't have a license, you may not drive a car (legally anyways ).

Pretty much how i see the situation too. But the argument of the other side is:
- The Main rulebook says "people in cars can drive them", and then ignore the "you may include" completely. They advocate that they are in a car (Bodyguards have filled the HQ slot) so they don't actually need a licence (don't need the Commander/Librarian/Chaplain)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 kingbobbito wrote:
I've always gone with the assumption that "you may include" if you have a commander or whatever would also mean "you may not include" if you don't have one. It's like saying "you may drive a car if you have a license". If you don't have a license, you may not drive a car (legally anyways ).

Pretty much how i see the situation too. But the argument of the other side is:
- The Main rulebook says "people in cars can drive them", and then ignore the "you may include" completely. They advocate that they are in a car (Bodyguards have filled the HQ slot) so they don't actually need a licence (don't need the Commander/Librarian/Chaplain)

I, at least, am not ignoring the "you may include" wording at all. I just see it as the permission that it is.

I'm also not making assumptions that "If A then B" necessarily means "If not A then not B". The reason I don't do this is that doing so is falling prey to a logical fallacy called the "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy. Feel free to read more about it at the link below. Admittedly, one issue with this fallacy is that it can be coincidentally true, but I don't see that being the case here.

Here's an example...

If I am an American citizen then I am human. (If A then B)
If I am NOT an American citizen then I am NOT human. (If A then not B) - This sentence is provably false.

If (Condition A) then (Outcome B).
If (I take a Commander in my list) then (I have the option of taking a Bodyguard Team. This selection does not take up an HQ slot.).
If (I do not take a Commander in my list) then (???). We are given no instructions for this scenario in the Codex. We must rely on the BRB to guide us.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

 Kriswall wrote:
I, at least, am not ignoring the "you may include" wording at all. I just see it as the permission that it is.

I'm also not making assumptions that "If A then B" necessarily means "If not A then not B". The reason I don't do this is that doing so is falling prey to a logical fallacy called the "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy. Feel free to read more about it at the link below. Admittedly, one issue with this fallacy is that it can be coincidentally true, but I don't see that being the case here.

Here's an example...

If I am an American citizen then I am human. (If A then B)
If I am NOT an American citizen then I am NOT human. (If A then not B) - This sentence is provably false.

If (Condition A) then (Outcome B).
If (I take a Commander in my list) then (I have the option of taking a Bodyguard Team. This selection does not take up an HQ slot.).
If (I do not take a Commander in my list) then (???). We are given no instructions for this scenario in the Codex. We must rely on the BRB to guide us.

Linky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Hahaha, exalted! Really though, you don't need to educate me on fallacies, did debate through high school and college

I was simply saying that's the stance I held, and something that I compare it to. I could sadly tell from the start that this is a debate that has no genuinely solid argument on either side, it comes down to the opinion you get when you first read the sentence about including them.

I could attempt to argue using "logic", that a command squad is designed to escort an HQ, but you could counter by saying "It's called a command squad! They command the army!" or compare it to guard command squads, that can go on their own.

I don't have an English degree, but I could argue the meaning of "may" or some nonsense. It comes down to first impression upon reading the rule, or simply out of desire to benefit from taking a command squad instead of a costly HQ.

I personally won't run a command squad without a librarian, but I'd be fine if you did, as the wording is a bit lacking in clarity.