Space Wolf TDA army...

[Quillen]

I agree. It's down to the wording on Logans entry. As I do not have a copy I will worry about it later.

[Ulrickthegrey]

Part of me hopes that the SW can't use an all TDA army. I REALLY do wish for that.

[Greyshift]

I anticipate this will be cleared up in Octobers WD.

 

If GW intended for an all TDA army to be possible (which is certainly what the promotional material suggests) then they will no doubt make a big deal of it in the inevitably large SW section in the new WD. TDA = expensive = profit.

[Mantinel]

Someone may have covered this, but I will say it again if they have.

 

If I remember correctly people have said that fenris wolves can't be scoring units, which would mean even when taken as troops they can't score. THAT would imply that the norm is indeed 'count as' troops count as scoring units. I fully realize GW has a habbit of ambiguous rules and rulings most of the time, but I still have my doubts that they would be THAT obtuse on the matter.

 

This is mainly because of a special rule listed under Fenrisian Wolves entry that says:

 

"Supernumerary - Fenrisian Wolves , though fierce and possessed of a hunter's cunning, do not understand the finer points of military strategy. Fenrisian Wolves may not claim objectives under any circumstances."

[Hrathnar Flintfang]

Even if you can't always make full TDA you can make close, and why not? The wolves don't play by the rules, and they have been around long enough to have lots of TDA armor. Heck maybe some great company does it just to spite/mock the deathwing? kind of a "haha we can do that too suckers"

 

This is mainly because of a special rule listed under Fenrisian Wolves entry that says:

 

"Supernumerary - Fenrisian Wolves , though fierce and possessed of a hunter's cunning, do not understand the finer points of military strategy. Fenrisian Wolves may not claim objectives under any circumstances."

 

Exactly, so Grey hunters, including TDA, can score when taken as troops. Seems simple enough to me.

[GreatEscape_13]

Unfortunate choice of words...

 

Another "counts as":

 

"Okay, you. Tactical squad. Line up and count to 10."

 

"1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10."

 

"Now you. Wolf Guard. You line up and count to 10."

 

"1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10."

 

"Hey! That Wolf Guard counts as troops!"

 

Got to love the English language. So beatifully imprecise! A favorite of lawyers and judges!

 

Cheers.

 

p.s. In the interest of "more fun," my vote is to treat this as an unfortunate wording that shouldn't keep all-terminator wolf guard armies off the table. And that's from someone who runs Pedro/Crimson Fists and wishes that his Sternguard could be taken as troops, but knows why not. Hehe.

[Tsuro]

I don't understand how "rules-lawyer" came to be used as a pejorative. To my mind a rules-lawyer would draw upon precedent and additional non-binding material to seek to interpret the rules to best reflect the designer's intent.

 

In this instance the listing in the catalogue makes it fairly clear that it was intended for Grimnar to enable full TDA armies. It may have no binding force but it's extremely persuasive.

[Chucku]

I interpret that to mean that Wolf Guard now count as Troops, NOT Elite.

[Decoy]

From the mind of a guy with an English kerjiggermerwhat...

 

Put simply, the extension of Logan's rule states that Wolf Guard count as Troops.

 

Firstly; 6 Troops slots, 6 Wolf Guard.

 

Secondly, because Wolf guard "Count as Troops", they are capable of holding objectives, because only Troops can do so. Because they Count As troops, Wolf Guard are both scoring units, and occupy only the Troops part of the Force Org chart.

 

 

And it kills me to say that, because I was going to laugh heartily at everyone buying the dex only to have an army of completely non-scoring Wolf Guard.

 

 

EDIT for continuation of comment:

 

If I'm proven wrong, it will be the first time I'm genuinely happy about it. I will literally carouse about and dance and laugh and point at DA with thirty Wolf Guard terminators in their Deathwing cases. And then offer to buy them. :(

[Redbaron997]

I dont know why we have two topics on the exact same thing but:

 

Well lets look at this.

 

Canis has a rule that says "Fenrisian wolves count as troops in any army that includes Canis."

 

The exact same wording as

 

"Wolf Guard units count as troops in any army that includes Logan"

 

Since wolves can never claim an objective anyway there would be no advantage to taking them as troops unless they counted completely as a standard troop choice, Thus allowing for 6 units of Wolves (NUTS)

 

So the rule must mean they are taken as a troop choice, and thus Logan can taken WG units as troops, allowing up to 6 units.

 

Its the same language used in the same codex, so while an argument made be made for the Pedro rulling being in a different book, that argument can not be made against these two rules in the same book.

[wookie2533]

i think its pretty simple really. kantor's rule says they "count as scoring" so still only have 3 squads of them. i think if logens rull says "counts as troops" they they count as troops instead of elite. maybe its cause im from the south and we just like things simple and that seems pretty simple to me lol

 

i think this sums it up well the "counts as scoring" means they only count as scoring where as logan's has "counts as troops" which means they count as everything a NORMAL troop would which does include taking up a a troop choice in the FOC. Of course imagine if you could have 6 troop TDA WG and 3 elite TDA WG now that would kick arse ;)

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

I don't understand how "rules-lawyer" came to be used as a pejorative. To my mind a rules-lawyer would draw upon precedent and additional non-binding material to seek to interpret the rules to best reflect the designer's intent.

 

In this instance the listing in the catalogue makes it fairly clear that it was intended for Grimnar to enable full TDA armies. It may have no binding force but it's extremely persuasive.

 

This would sit under the rules for the interpretation of civil rather than criminal law and if you wish to quote the law then you must use the law of the land in question.

 

In English and Welsh civil law, the literal interpretation of wording takes precedence over intent, ‘the intention of Parliament is not to be judged by what is in its mind, but by the expression of that mind in the statute itself’ - see Whitely v, Chappell (1869). As, in this case, strict interpretation would not lead to an absurdity then we cannot apply the 'golden rule' to override it (nor the mischief rule as there is not conflict with a another rule).

 

I still like the idea of the all-termie force but just can't agree on a literal reading of the rules that would support it.

 

So, seeing that a legal approach is just another rabbit hole and that the discussion on the use of language indicates that they've left a grey area, I guess we will have to just wait and see...

[Grey Mage]

If we go back to the meaning of the words and grammatical form then that interpretation is not strictly correct.

 

'Count as troops' means that they are not troops but act as if they are.

 

If they were troops it would have to say 'are troops'.

 

So they are not troops but enjoy the same benefits under the rules, ie they count as scoring units.

 

No, "count as" means when you count them they are troops. So when you count your units for your force allocation you count each wolf guard unit as a troops unit. When you count your scoring units you count each wolf guard unit as if it was a troops unit.

 

"Count as" does not mean "acts like" which is what you are trying to argue.

Dark Angels codex says "treated as"

And C:Eldar says "Fielded as"

C:SM says "taken as"

 

For gods sakes theyre all different. I think the intention though is very simple- because every time it just means they are a scoring unit, even in 4rth edition, it says "scoring". Sometimes it mentions a specific type, like for purposes of table quarters etc.

 

As much as I wish it was just for scoring purposes I really cant agree with the argument.

[saphius]

If they can't be taken as Troops, then the rule would use the Kantor wording of making WG scoring.

 

I agree with him. They Count as troop for all intensive game purposes. (Including FOC).

 

If they were still elites the wording would be more like Kantor's as he said, 'Counts as a scoring unit' Is very different from 'Count as troops'.

Embrace the awesomeness. You can run an entire Veteran Company.

[Tsuro]

I still like the idea of the all-termie force but just can't agree on a literal reading of the rules that would support it.

 

So, seeing that a legal approach is just another rabbit hole and that the discussion on the use of language indicates that they've left a grey area, I guess we will have to just wait and see...

 

I'm not looking for an argument here, but if the use of language in this case is a "grey area," that is to say that 'counts as troops' can be understood as

• [1] giving WG troop status in-game
  or
  [2] treating them as troops for all purposes including FOC
  

how can a literal reading not support it?

 

And then there is the business with the Fenrisian Wolves.

 

Unless GW officially FAQs that Grimnar doesn't allow WG to be taken from troops, I honestly can't see players using the rule any other way.

The catalogue already put the idea in player's minds; they're talking and thinking about the terminator armies they're going to make. The more they hear, the further the idea is cemented. These players will subconsciously equate "counts as" with "are troops" because that is what they expect to see written there. They've been programmed.

 

I don't understand why GW don't have a technical writer/lawyer/pedant go over their rules to ensure that they are clear and all gel. I was playing epic: space marine a while ago and some of the different readings of rules between two guys having a friendly game was astonishing.

[Grey Mage]

Answer: Because if they had a laywer work over the wording then no one but a lawyer could figure out what they were saying without breaking out a legal dictionairy and a long while of cogitation.

 

Wich doesnt make for a fun game.

 

What they SHOULD do is simply have a forum where people can post questions- and when a new one is asked a timer starts... the answer apears within 1 month or someone gets fired.

[Decoy]

GM, you know that if they did that, we'd just get even -more- complicated answers, spaced out in month-long intervals, which just conflict with each other and would need yet another question to clarify. :)

[Wolf Lord Durgann]

Answer: Because if they had a laywer work over the wording then no one but a lawyer could figure out what they were saying without breaking out a legal dictionairy and a long while of cogitation.

 

Wich doesnt make for a fun game.

 

What they SHOULD do is simply have a forum where people can post questions- and when a new one is asked a timer starts... the answer apears within 1 month or someone gets fired.

 

 

HERE HERE! I'll drink to that!

 

But in regards to this topic. I agree with the others that think TDA Wolves are a allowed. "Count as" means to me that what ever it is is taking on the role of what ever it is suppose to count as. After determining that they 'count as troops' you then look at the rules for troops and find that troops are scoring units. They also have a slough of other nifty rules.

 

TBH I am only getting involved with the Space Wolves because I will be able to run a low model count army. It is what I like to run. I enjoy playing this game with painted models and don't enjoy having to paint up 80-200 models to run a game. A small exception to this is my Tomb King army. But painting sand bleached bone is cake!

 

 

'

[Ronin_eX]

Here is another easy way of figuring it out.

 

First we assume that the reading means that they take a troop slot instead of an elite slot and they are scoring. We can assume these two things because those are both properties associated with Troops choices. So assuming 'counts as' means they count as troops for all intents and purposes and use that FoC slot and count as scoring then the rule works.

 

Second assume that 'counts' as has a different meaning. Now tell me what this rule means based on that. When something counts as a troop what doesn't it have that a troop choice would? There is no extra wording in the rule describing what it lacks that makes it less than a troop as some seem to think 'counts as' implies in this case. The rule does not work at all, or even do anything if read in the opposite way of that above. The rule would literally be pointless if 'counts as' limited them from being fully considered a troop choice because it doesn't say what it is limiting.

 

Because it says 'counts as' and lists no limits on what this grants the Wolf Guard we can only logically assume that in this case they mean that WG take a troop slot and are scoring because those are the two properties inherent to things which are/count as troops.

 

Add to this that each codex where similar things like this happen use different wording ('taken as', 'treated as' and 'fielded as') to describe the same effect only goes to show that there is no concise signal here to the players that this has anything at all to do with Pedro Kantor's 'counts as a scoring unit' rule. Because that reading vehemetly ignores the very important second bit after 'counts as' in which the limitations of the 'counts as' are laid out.

 

In Pedro Kantor's case he makes Sternguard 'count as scoring units' so while not normally allowed to be scoring units for all intents and purposes they act exactly like any other scoring unit while still not coming from the troop slot. So extend that to Logan Grimnar making WG 'count as troops' we have to assume that all the properties of the generic "troops" profile is handed to them including the place in the FoC chart and the scoring status.

 

And if simple logic, lack of exceptions, and lack of precedent supporting the ulterior case isn't enough we have a GW website plastered with the intent of the rule itself saying that when you take Logan Grimnar WOLF GUARD ARE TROOPS IN EVERY WAY THAT COUNTS. I honestly can't see how this made it past page one unless people are being wilfully obtuse about it. The case in which WG terminators count as troops but are limited in some unknown way is simply full of logical holes and can't exist as a possible interpretation of the rules simply because without those limitations implied or spelled out there is no way to read any limitations into it. Occam's Razor is telling you that the simplest explanation in this case is the best because it requires you to assume the least extra entities (in this case rules exceptions that don't exist or aren't described). It really is just that simple. :)

[Decoy]

Honestly, Ronin, your post made me see it in a slightly different light.

 

I think we may be placing the emphasis on the wrong word. Instead of the "Counts as" bit (which I'll admit is important), we might want to look at "Troops choice", or specifically, "Choice".

 

What does one do when one selects a Troops choice? It takes up an option in the "Troops" slot. Meaning, therefore, six of them can be taken as opposed to three, within the Elites slot. Therefore, "count as a troops choice" would merely imply that they may be taken by the six, as opposed to by the three, without gaining the benefits of the Troops normal rules; particularly, being able to hold objectives.

 

Therefore it could, within reason, mean that a TDA army is possible, but doesn't count as scoring.

 

Revising my past judgment to "Ambiguous" for now, for the reasons above. I'll hold off any actual judgment until an FAQ, at least in regards to them counting as scoring units.

[Decoy]

I honestly can't see how this made it past page one unless people are being wilfully obtuse about it.

 

Watch the tone, Angel. You may be using our rules, but you're in the Fang, and us Wolves taking this from an analytical perspective, while you have a vested interest in an all-TDA army.

 

Also, since when has Gee-Dub been logical about anything?

 

EDIT FOR SPACING.

 

EDIT-EDIT:

 

Evidently, there was a bit of a scuffle on Dakka about just this very thing, although not from the Wolves perspective. It appears that there are several instances where things that "Count as" (using that exact wording), troops do -not- score Evidently, the Ork, Tau and Eldar codices also have such things, which are selected as troops choices, but are not scoring units.

 

Definitely waiting for G-dub on this one.

[lokeiSHP]

Suggesting that they count as troops but don't count as scoring is even more mind boggling. Consider Troops to be a keyword. Once you invoke it as a parameter (Counts as TROOPS) they you are applying the connotations of the keyword, i.e. they take up slots on the Troop portion of the FOC and count as scoring units. Additionally we can see because the wording is Counts as Troops and not May be taken as troops that they are in fact removed from being an elite choice and only exist in a Logan Grimnar army as a troop choice.

 

EDIT-EDIT:

 

Evidently, there was a bit of a scuffle on Dakka about just this very thing, although not from the Wolves perspective. It appears that there are several instances where things that "Count as" (using that exact wording), troops do -not- score Evidently, the Ork, Tau and Eldar codices also have such things, which are selected as troops choices, but are not scoring units.

 

Definitely waiting for G-dub on this one.

 

I'd like to know what units they are talking about. With Tau I assume that they are talking about the Fire Warrior squad that can be taken with an Ethereal. If that is the case they are incorrect in assessing that squad as Counting as troops. While normal Firewarrior squads are selected as troops, the squad the accompanies the ethereal is bought as a Retinue. Because they are a retinue to the ethereal, they count as part of the HQ slot occupied by the ethereal (and function as one squad). The comparison with SW is WG taking a Land Raider as a dedicated transport. Because the Land Raider is selected as a dedicated transport it functions as part of the elites slot occupied by the WG. Similarly in the outgoing codex LF could buy a Land Raider as a dedicated transport and both the LF and the LR would exist as a single Heavy Choice. In fact WG were extremely unusual in the outgoing dex since the WG bodyguard was purchased by an HQ but counted as one elite slot.

[Decoy]

Consequentially, and in a bit of an extension (I don't edit after a following post has been made), apparently "Counts as scoring" also makes things scoring, but not "Troops".

 

So if there's past precedent for:

Non-Troops counting as Scoring

Non-Scoring counting as Troops

 

Why would it be so out of the realm of possibility for the Wolves to have the same thing?

 

Honestly, I have the feeling that Wolf Guard will, indeed, be scoring under Logan, but it's worded very ambiguously.

[lokeiSHP]

I'd like to know what examples they are using for Non-scoring counting as Troops, partially because I am in fact refuting that any such unit exists within the Tau codex and I have my suspicions about the others. I our own new codex we do in fact have Non-scoring counting as troops, but they have their own rule specifically stating that they do not count as scoring.

 

Having said that, there is one other Tau unit that I can come up with that they may be discussing which is the Sniper Drone team which does say in its Codex entry that it does not count as scoring. However when the Tau codex was written in 4th Ed everything counted as scoring unless noted otherwise. In 5th edition this is a completely redundant part of the entry as Sniper Drone teams are a Heavy choice and wouldn't be scoring anyway. There is certainly nothing non-scoring that counts as troops. Perhaps you could link the afformentioned thread?

[Decoy]

Aye, give me a bit, Lokei. It took me almost three hours total to find it, and I didn't manage to bookmark it before my ruddy Dell shut off on me. It gets finicky after being on for about three months solid, go figure.