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.

The rule for conscripts with "send in the next wave" is...

... A unit with this special rule can, at the start of the player's turn, be removed from play as casualties if the controlling player wishes, counting as destroyed. Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn.

The question is, if my opponent destroys a squad of conscripts (wipes them out with shooting, sweeping advance, or they run off the table thanks to their low Ld), can you bring them back the next turn?

Argument 1: Yes. "Removed from play" is a very broad phrase that means nothing more than there are no models of that unit remaining on the tabletop for whatever reason. "Counting as destroyed" here is placed as a sub-set of "removed from play".

Argument 2: No. "Removed from play" is specific and refers to the previous sentence's definition of the phrase. The reason they had to add "counting as destroyed" is because being destroyed doesn't fulfill the requirement for being removed (they are technically different things - cf. the difference between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" in other rules like wraithguns and gifts of chaos). If a conscript squad was removed from play a la the rule described (voluntarily, at the end of your turn), then it's fine, but if the squad is destroyed in some other way, then they can't make use of this special rule, as they were run off the board, killed where they stand, or some other way of not being on the board anymore. If you took a looser reading of removed from play, it would screw up other rules elsewhere.

The question is if the wording in the second sentence should be " Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play (for any reason) may be brought back..." or if the sentence should be read " Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play (in this way) may be brought back..."

I would read that as meaning that if the squad is destroyed prior to you wanting to use the rule, they're not an eligible unit to remove since they're on longer in play.

Looking at he two sentences of the rule, the second doesn't seem dependant on the first.

A unit with this special rule can, at the start of the player's turn, be removed from play as casualties if the controlling player wishes, counting as destroyed.

This allows a squad in play to be removed.

Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn.

The only requirement is that the squad has been removed from play.

It doesn't seem to require the squad to have been voluntarily removed, only that it has been removed. An enemy destroying the squad will remove it from play.

Taken by itself, out of the context of the paragraph and preceeding sentences, I agree with you.

Luckily, we have the benefit of the preceding information.

So I would say no, you don't get to bring it back unless you took it off.

I always considered them two separate sentences and points in the rule, and this has been the discussion I have always had with opponents before games and they have all agreed.

The removal is part 1. The new unit is part 2.

 grendel083 wrote:
Looking at he two sentences of the rule, the second doesn't seem dependant on the first.

A unit with this special rule can, at the start of the player's turn, be removed from play as casualties if the controlling player wishes, counting as destroyed.

This allows a squad in play to be removed.

Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn.

The only requirement is that the squad has been removed from play.

It doesn't seem to require the squad to have been voluntarily removed, only that it has been removed. An enemy destroying the squad will remove it from play.

I read it the same way as this. But I'm also sure to talk it over before a game, and no one has had a problem with it.

It has two different, and independent, components. They're each in their own sentence.

1. You can remove the unit from play at the start of your own turn if you want.
2. If the unit has been removed from play, you can have another wave of conscripts show up.

Right, the trickiness is dependency. Both sentences use the same phrase to describe what happens, thus the confusion.

You could easily make the argument that the rule sets up something called X, and that the second half of the rule is just an extension of the first half - requiring X as it had just been defined.

The other argument is that there is something called X out there, and the first part of the rule gives one example of how X might be achieved, but regardless of if it happens according to that example or not is irrelevant. In this case, if X happens by any means, then the second part of the rule is triggered.

It really doesn't seem obvious to me which is the better interpretation and, unfortunately, it doesn't seem immediately obvious which way it was intended either.

I mean, I'd like it to be the independent, non-specific way, as otherwise I'd be risking 70 points of upgrades on an 80 point squad not running away on an Ld5 before I had a chance to remove it from play myself, but that's just a personal preference.

This seems like its one of those things that, if it goes on, will end up argued in terms of 'grammatical accuracy' where both sides have valid points but refuse to see the other side's.

Best bet is just to discuss with your opponent before you play.

 Ailaros wrote:
Right, the trickiness is dependency. Both sentences use the same phrase to describe what happens, thus the confusion.

Well, I think using the same phrase is meant to make it more clear. A unit can be removed from play multiple ways. The most common are for all the models to be killed, or for it to run off the table. I believe they used "remove the unit from play" in the first sentence to try to make it clear that if you remove the unit voluntarily, that also fulfills the requirement for sending in another wave.

First off, the requirement isn't in the RaW. It's just not there.

Second off, the fluff behind the rule is that you've got endless waves of reinforcements. So, there's no reason to read into the rule to acquire such a requirement. The initial part seems to exist to allow you to bring on the next wave, not prevent it.

I've always read SITNW as removing the Conscripts in the previous turn as being a requirement to being able to send in the next wave as it were. The reason being is that it does seem ambiguous to me and the least advantageous way for me to run it would be to have that requirement. This thread has now caused me to question that judgment, but I'd certainly like to hear more.

I read it as a requirement, meaning you have to be the one to remove the unit in your own turn in order for it to return as reinforcements.
If it shouldn't be interpreted in this way then there is no point in writing the first sentence at all.

Yes, because the second half is not reliant on the first. For instance you may remove the unit and not bring a new one in. Also, the removal of the unit allows you to chose when to use the ability and not have the requirement that the opponent finishes it off, if this were the case your opponent could get the unit down to either a single conscript and allow him to fall back unit he dies or rolls 1's or to 25% and then ignore the small amount of bad guardsmen.