For those debating 4 Rune Priests with JOWW

[Ymir]

I figured out how Mr. Kelly was able to field Njal and a Rune Priest with JOWW. Page 64 of the codex says "Special Characters" are the exception to these. Thus you could field Njal and a RP with JOWW, but not 4 RPs with JOWW. Page 81 is as clear as air on no 2 can have either the same saga, powers, or wargear.

[Dingareth]

Wow, thank you for clearing that up for us! Except, that when we ACTUALLY read the sentence, you know, using our good grammar skills, we see:

Blah blah blah... nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination.

Looks good so they can have the same wargear combination, nor may they have the same psychic powers in combination. Oh! Look at that. Despite your incredible powers of deduction in pointing out that special caveat about special characters and how it applies to a battle report that has absolutely no bearing on the rules, it appears that you can actually take 4 Rune Priests, all with Jaws of the World Wolf (although I have no idea why you would think that this is a good idea) as long as they have both a different combination of psychic powers and wargear, and as long as they do no bear the same Saga.

Next time, try reading although, as apparent by your other thread on this same topic, it appears that you're well on your way to learning that skill. Baby steps though...

[dagonis]

"Blah blah blah... nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination."

If it meant psychic power combinations it would read:

nor may they bear the same psychic power or wargear combination

they don't say

nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargears combination

and it would not be proper to say

nor may they bear the same psychic powers combination

it would read

nor may they bear the same psychic power combination

That s is a fairly important modifier as it changes the meaning of the sentence. Combination carries an implicit plurality that negates the requirement of s to denote multiples if it is acting upon the noun (in this case psychic powers). In this case psychic powers is left plural, thus unacted upon by the word combination. "Saga", "psychic powers", and "wargear combination" are all independent concepts. As such, when looking at the rule just dealing with psychic powers the rule would read "To represent this, no two characters may bear the same psychic powers"

Rule from the SW dex
To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination. Space Wolves are far too Individual and proud for such unimaginative tactics!

[PhoenixFlame]

I figured out how Mr. Kelly was able to field Njal and a Rune Priest with JOWW. Page 64 of the codex says "Special Characters" are the exception to these. Thus you could field Njal and a RP with JOWW, but not 4 RPs with JOWW. Page 81 is as clear as air on no 2 can have either the same saga, powers, or wargear.

@ YmirThanks for the effort, tho as you can see the debate continues. And while I'm interested in the debate on an abstract level (yes I'm crazy I actually entertain myself trying to pin down specific rulings even in 40k, but don't worry I don't rules lawyer in the middle of a game) I really have to wonder why it's such a debate.

/commentary on the JotWW x4 debate Just looking at the points cost for those priests vs the return I don't see it as overpowered or even that attractive of an option honestly. What could I do with 400 points :rolleyes: (or 300 if you're running one priest anyway).
In most lists Bejorn or Logan are going to be more worth the points for HQ choices if you're interested in putting that much down. Or better yet get both Cainus and Ulric for 65 pts more, leave one priest in and go wild that way.

anyway don't feel heckled for working your way through a new codex (in fact I highly suggest working your way through all of them even if you don't intend to play more than one army)

Cheers,
Phoenix

[DarkLink]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure this was already brought up, and still the general consensus seems to be that you may take the same individual powers. Just saying...

[dagonis]

I don't really think the language justifies it tbh. See my above explanation for why.

[Dingareth]

nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargears combination

Yes, because everyone uses the word wargears. So Games Workshop knows nothing about parallel structure, I'm willing to put this one under crappy writing rather than make sweeping assumptions that could potentially limit Space Wolves players. As you point out, there is some ambiguity; however, it comes down to the placement of the comma before nor. That separates the singular Saga- which no character may have the same of- from the multiple psychic powers or wargear combination- which no character may repeat.

It all comes down to the comma, not the s.

[MVBrandt]

Psychic Powers, plural, kind of resolves it all. It does not say they may not have the same psychic power, it says they may not have the same psychic powerS.

If Joe has on an orange shirt, and blue pants, and Mindy has on the same orange shirt, and green pants, they are not wearing the same clothes (plural), they are just wearing the same shirt.

Unless their psychic POWERS are the same (meaning plural, not one), you're golden with 4 x jotww.

[mkerr]

I'm in agreement with MVBrandt here. The word "powers" (as opposed to "power") is the key.

[Rapture]

Psychic Powers, plural, kind of resolves it all. It does not say they may not have the same psychic power, it says they may not have the same psychic powerS.

If Joe has on an orange shirt, and blue pants, and Mindy has on the same orange shirt, and green pants, they are not wearing the same clothes (plural), they are just wearing the same shirt.

Unless their psychic POWERS are the same (meaning plural, not one), you're golden with 4 x jotww.

A good examination. I think you are right as well.

[Duke]

On a playing level: The funny thing is that 4x JOTWW isn't that powerful... So I personally don't care if someone brings 4 of them. English or not.

On a debate level: Often when debates surrounding the language come up it is often helpful to see how it is written in another language. Does anyone have an alternate language from which to compare? (What other languages was the 'dex written in? If any.)

Duke

[webron]

It is important to note that the plural form of "wargear" does not really exist. You can't say "wargears" any more than you can say equipments. You can have "gears", referring to a part, as a disk, wheel, or section of a shaft, having cut teeth of such form, size, and spacing that they mesh with teeth in another part to transmit or receive force and motion. But if you are referring to equipment in the plural, you would say something to the effect of "pieces of gear" of more to the point, "combination of gear".

The placement of the comma indicates that the part of the sentence dealing with powers and wargear are meant to prohibit a identical combination thereof. If you replace powers and wargear with another term with similar grammatical rules the meaning is pretty clear. If the sentence were to read "... nor may they have the same items or equipment combination. It would be a reasonable reading to say two RP could have the same two powers each, if they had different wargear, ie if you gave one a bolter. I think the most reasonable interpretation is that a RP cannot have have the same two powers as any other RP, regardless of what wargear each model has.

[The Green Git]

As unpopular as it appears here, the wording of the sentence is actually pretty clear grammatically. My reading of the rule says no two characters may bear the same psychic powers.

Let's review the sentence: "To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination."

Notice this is a fractured sentence with multiple dependent clauses. Each cannot stand on it's own and we must look back in the sentence to properly connect the thoughts. You break this down as so:

"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga"
"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same psychic powers"
"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same wargear combination"

Without getting into intentions and only looking at the sentence you can't have ""To represent this, no two characters may bear the same psychic powers combination" because the word "combination" is on the other side of the conjunction "or". You can't join the words "psychic powers" and "combination" without breaking basic rules of English.

This is in dire need of an FAQ.

[DarkLink]

As unpopular as it appears here, the wording of the sentence is actually pretty clear grammatically. My reading of the rule says no two characters may bear the same psychic powers.

Let's review the sentence: "To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination."

Notice this is a fractured sentence with multiple dependent clauses. Each cannot stand on it's own and we must look back in the sentence to properly connect the thoughts. You break this down as so:

"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga"
"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same psychic powers"
"To represent this, no two characters may bear the same wargear combination"

Without getting into intentions and only looking at the sentence you can't have ""To represent this, no two characters may bear the same psychic powers combination" because the word "combination" is on the other side of the conjunction "or". You can't join the words "psychic powers" and "combination" without breaking basic rules of English.

This is in dire need of an FAQ.

Psychic Powers Combinations also doesn't make sense in English. Psychic powers doesn't need the word combinations, as the term psychic powers is plural already.

[Bung]

@ Duke

Maybe i can help out with the german version, its a bit more clerly written i think.

The german versios says translated ... may not have the same saga, combination of psychic powers and wargear.

Indicating that u can field 4 rune priests with JOWW as lang as the second psychic power is different and they dont have the same wargear combination.

[MVBrandt]

I reiterate the earlier, I doubt people go back through a thread.

As soon as it says psychic powers, the word "combination" is unnecessary.

It could simply be this sentence:

No two characters may have the same psychic powers.

That would allow 4 x JOTWW, so long as the psychic powers (plural) of no two characters were the same. If someone has JOTWW and Lightning, and the other has JOTWW and freki/geri, their powers are not the same. They just both have JOTWW.

[Sam]

I figured out how Mr. Kelly was able to field Njal and a Rune Priest with JOWW. Page 64 of the codex says "Special Characters" are the exception to these. Thus you could field Njal and a RP with JOWW, but not 4 RPs with JOWW. Page 81 is as clear as air on no 2 can have either the same saga, powers, or wargear.

Page 64 says that Special Characters are an exception to the restriction on Sagas. It does not say anything about the other restrictions.

[Lerra]

The german version says translated ... may not have the same saga, combination of psychic powers and wargear.

Ah thanks for the translation :) I am guessing that is how the FAQ will be written when it's eventually released. Until then, I agree that Rune Priests are slightly overrated and I'm not too worried about seeing lists with 4x JotWW. Perhaps a list with 2x JotWW or 2x Living Lightning, though.

[rbryce]

ive been reading this debate for weeks now, and said nothing as i dont play wolves, or against them currently. But, could this not just go down to using the same book to represent true english and american english? I know not many people believe there is any real difference (other than lazy spelling on the US side of things, but they cant help that, it was that way before any of them were born), but there is! in the uk i believe rather more people would say that it cant be spammed, due to the fact that the rules were written by an englishman, and we can understand what is meant by the sentence. the pluralisation of powers, and the fact they are seperated from the rest of the sentance by dividing words and characters limits it to just psychic powers as none of the rest of the sentance that has been seperated can bear any relevence to it. the word powers is pluralised because what they are attached to is pluralised, that being "Characters". if for example you were to reduce the word to just "Character", then the powers would also lose the "s". it is in reference to MULTIPLE units using the same thing. I know ill probably get flamed for saying this, but its true. just because our languages sound the same and are generally called the same name, please remember they ARE different, they have evolved differently and are spoken by different cultures. The same as the US once protested Brittish rule, I protest american logic on Brittish writing BECAUSE we are different. No offence intended to you guys, its just that a majority of us in the UK dislike american spelling.

[Melissia]

The above post to me seems to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of a british dude. "Oh, those silly americans, they don't know anything about the English language." It's condescending and insulting, therefor trolling, and therefor a worthless post. Feel free to ignore that trash.

[Old_Paladin]

The above post to me seems to be nothing more than arrogance on the part of a brit. "Oh, those silly americans, they don't know anything about the English language." It's condescending and insulting, therefor trolling, and therefor a worthless post. Feel free to ignore that trash.

Hear Hear!
I'm not even an American, I'm one of the 'colonies' children; and still found that above post to be arrogant and pointless. It proves nothing.
The fact is, languages are fluid (they grow and change) and we live in a global community. So maybe that means that in the UK it will be played differently; but that doesn't equate to Americans being wrong, or stupid. It is ok if they're different, but that poster makes difference the same as wrongness; and only his 'british' interpratation was correct.

[rbryce]

if you read the post you would understand that no offence was intended, and honestly you have no ground to stand on when it comes to that mellissa. it is actually a point on the differences in the english language, which even over here are major, small though we may be. at the end of the day, i say wait for the FAQ, and until then use house rules. there really is no need for debate over the matter. what i was trying to point out is that though we share a common language, we are completely different. our INTERPRETATION of events will be different because our languages evolved seperately, and as such our interpretation WILL be different. I make no claims at understanding the mind and thought processes of a foreign person, as they were raised completely differently to me, to believe different is arrogance. and now i feel fully fledged after a rant at me from mellissa. no one can feel part of the community till they have been. (for mellissa, this is an observationand a joke, not an insult)

[Melissia]

Yeah, I'm an *******, and I don't hide that fact. But at least I don't attack people based on their nationality, race, gender, etc, and then attempt to say "no insult meant". What you said is quite similar to saying "black people are lazy bums, no offense meant", or "arabs are terrorists, no offense meant". Just like your post, those types of comments are worthless trash.

Mind you, even saying "all Americans are X" or "American English is X" is stupid in and of itself; the differences between the various states, and indeed the differences between the various regions within the states themselves, can be startlingly different. But I suppose we're nothing more than Yanks to you, right? Just be sure not to go to the southern states and say that, you might get put into the hospital.

[Sam]

Rbryce, your argument that "powers" is only plural because "characters" is plural falls apart if you look a few words back in the sentence, where we see that "saga" is singular. Which leads me to believe that "powers" is plural because the sentence is referring to multiple powers.

[rbryce]

ok mellissa, you know that bit on radicals and puritans in the codex, read, then read our posts. i did not make a generalisation on american culture, i was commenting on language. i do have american friends, and i read a lot of fiction from the US. Whenever i feel im getting the wrong end of the stick, or am confused about how something is written i ask one of these friends to clarify the language for me. could i have had more tact, very much so, and i make no excuse for my behaviour, but if you felt wronged by what i said, then i really do apologise. if you do not accept this, then fine, but instead of taking over the thread, mail me, and we can discuss further.

@ sam,, you are very probably right, and i welcome criticism when it is constructive.

[Melissia]

Yes, you did, actually-- it's far more condescending than you seem to realize.

In the end, the English language does not differ THAT greatly between the British Isles and the Americas (both US and Canada). There are different phrases that mean different things in all three countries (such as Buddy being a derogatory term in many parts of Canada, while in the United States its meaning is closer to "friend"), various words and connotations, but those don't effect the basic understanding of language; the essence of the English language does not differ greatly between the various nations that speak it. If it did, we wouldn't be able to sit here and communicate at all like this.

[Jwolf]

First, when a person who can't be bothered to capitilize or spellcheck comments on understanding of language, why does anyone respond? At least bother to spell things right if you're going to attempt to argue linguistics.

Second, please get back on topic.

[EmperorEternalXIX]

For the record, my history as a newspaper employee agrees with Dagonis.

Since each RP can have two powers, the idea of the sentence's word "powers" instead of "power" is less relevant than some of the above posters' sentiments are indicating. It seems pretty clear to me -- if you cut the other parts out, the part of the sentence relative to rune priests is pretty clear.

If it were the way these guys were hoping, it would say "psychic power" and not "psychic powers," as it would be part of a compound subject. As a result of it being not part of a compound subject, it is its own subject -- hence, this can be read literally.

At least that is my $.02 on the matter. And I did grammar for a living for 8 years.