Leaders of the Pack

[Ntin]

“Codex: Space Wolves”, 5th edition, page 81 has the following rule.

 

“Leaders of the Pack

…To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combinations…”

 

(That sentence is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in my life.)

 

The three predicates and two conjunctions are such:

“the same saga “nor” [the same psychic power “or” wargear combinations]”

 

Equivalently keeping the negative and positive conjunctions in the same agreement:

“not the same saga “and” not the same psychic power “and” not the same wargear combinations”

 

In either case “Leaders of the Pack” has three conditions that must be met. Namely each character must have unique sagas, psychic powers, and wargear. Sagas and wargear are both optional choices for a character. This implies that not taking a saga for example, is a valid choice to fulfill a condition. Then:

 

I. Would having two or more characters without sagas break the sagas condition?

II. Would taking two or more non-Rune Priest characters break the psychic powers condition? As they both not taking psychic powers.

III. Would all non-Rune Priest characters illegal choices because they are unable to meet the criteria of psychic power condition? As it is not even an option for them.

[DarkKnightCuron]

I don't...believe so. I mean, I only just skimmed through the Space Wolf Codex, but two characters in an army, both of them without sagas or powers, are probably legitimate. Thats...a very interesting question though.

[Legatus]

"no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combinations"

 

So you have two characters, none of which has a saga. Are they both bearing the same saga? Which saga is it that they are both bearing?

 

Or you have two characters, none of which has a psychic power. Are they both bearing the same power? Which psychic power is it that they are both bearing?

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I. Would having two or more characters without sagas break the sagas condition?

II. Would taking two or more non-Rune Priest characters break the psychic powers condition? As they both not taking psychic powers.

III. Would all non-Rune Priest characters illegal choices because they are unable to meet the criteria of psychic power condition? As it is not even an option for them.

 

Hahaha ;) . Very clever and astute reading but no to all three of your propositions.

 

They mean that Rune Priests, with the exception of Njal, have to take different Psy powers.

 

You cannot take two guys with the same Saga.

 

You cannot take two guys with the same Wargear.

 

*Please don't stir up our Wolf brothers, they get excited easily enough as it is. :)

[Hfran Morkai]

Hahaha ;) . Very clever and astute reading but no to all three of your propositions.

 

They mean that Rune Priests, with the exception of Njal, have to take different Psy powers.

 

You cannot take two guys with the same Saga.

 

You cannot take two guys with the same Wargear.

 

*Please don't stir up our Wolf brothers, they get excited easily enough as it is. :)

 

This man has got it.

 

And yes, we are a rather hot-headed lot, think of us as similar to those adorable little puppies, but we'll rip your throat out if you're not careful. :)

[Bobman]

“Codex: Space Wolves”, 5th edition, page 81 has the following rule.

 

“Leaders of the Pack

…To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combinations…”

 

(That sentence is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in my life.)

 

The three predicates and two conjunctions are such:

“the same saga “nor” [the same psychic power “or” wargear combinations]”

 

Equivalently keeping the negative and positive conjunctions in the same agreement:

“not the same saga “and” not the same psychic power “and” not the same wargear combinations”

 

In either case “Leaders of the Pack” has three conditions that must be met. Namely each character must have unique sagas, psychic powers, and wargear. Sagas and wargear are both optional choices for a character. This implies that not taking a saga for example, is a valid choice to fulfill a condition. Then:

 

I. Would having two or more characters without sagas break the sagas condition?

II. Would taking two or more non-Rune Priest characters break the psychic powers condition? As they both not taking psychic powers.

III. Would all non-Rune Priest characters illegal choices because they are unable to meet the criteria of psychic power condition? As it is not even an option for them.

 

 

"no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combinations"

 

So you have two characters, none of which has a saga. Are they both bearing the same saga? Which saga is it that they are both bearing?

 

Or you have two characters, none of which has a psychic power. Are they both bearing the same power? Which psychic power is it that they are both bearing?

 

Exactly if I got Wolf Priest without anything and a Wolf Priest without anything have they got the same sagas - no simple.

[Morticon]

Im very, very very happy that someone with a grammatic or linguistic background (or so it seems) has picked this apart. I think this is a VERY poorly written rule and it just serves to confuse.

 

People have argued this one way or another so vehemently and its good to see that its just poor English grammar structure that has led to the confusion !

 

Cheers.

[gil galed]

I. Would having two or more characters without sagas break the sagas condition?

II. Would taking two or more non-Rune Priest characters break the psychic powers condition? As they both not taking psychic powers.

III. Would all non-Rune Priest characters illegal choices because they are unable to meet the criteria of psychic power condition? As it is not even an option for them.

 

Am I confused or are people being silly, Is this trying to prove a point other than its obvious that not taking a saga means you don't have a saga?

 

Two characters without sagas clearly don't have the same saga? Its not as if the is a "Null Saga"

 

In regards to wargear i'd argue you have to take different stuff, if you have say a bolt pistol and chainsword as standard you can't have two unupgraded models with that as they share the same wargear combination. :o

 

Isn't the real deal with this sentences the spamming of JoTWW killing my beautiful broadsides?

[SeattleDV8]

If your Broadsides are within 24" they were in trouble anyway,but that said I concede to your point.

JoWW is brutal vs. low Int models (eg Broadsides ,carnifex,etc) but totally useless against crisis suits, jump infantry and jet bikes.

[Grey Mage]

I. Would having two or more characters without sagas break the sagas condition?

II. Would taking two or more non-Rune Priest characters break the psychic powers condition? As they both not taking psychic powers.

III. Would all non-Rune Priest characters illegal choices because they are unable to meet the criteria of psychic power condition? As it is not even an option for them.

 

1: No, because they dont possess the "same" saga, they merely fail to possess one at all.

2: No, because again they dont posses identical psychic powers... they simply fail to possess any psychic powers.

3: No, as it doesnt state you must have one, just that if you do no one else can have an identical combination of them.

 

IV. Can two Rune Priests have one power in common if the other power is not the same?

 

4: Yes, because it is not an identical combination of powers.

 

V. Can two of any HQ have a Plasma Pistol in addition to their other weapons?

 

5: Yes, as long as they other weapon they possess is different.

 

VI. Does a Wolf Priests Crozius Arcanum count as a powerweapon for the purposes of Leader of the Pack?

 

6: Yes, it "counts as a power weapon" with no restrictions, thus it counts as one for all purposes- including leaders of the pack.

 

Thats my take on things anyways.

[gil galed]

If your Broadsides are within 24" they were in trouble anyway,but that said I concede to your point.

JoWW is brutal vs. low Int models (eg Broadsides ,carnifex,etc) but totally useless against crisis suits, jump infantry and jet bikes.

 

Many a time have my broadsides faced drop podding Priests, so not much I can do about the 24" bit

[Morticon]

GM - I may be wrong here(Ntin - correct me if im off-sides!), but I think Ntin's questions were somewhat rhetorical.

 

I think he was listing the problems arising from the wording of a grammatically incorrect English sentence more than asking a question. Again, I may be wrong, thats just what I took from it.

 

That's also why I think there has been so much disagreement and arguing about the rule, because its not only "not well written", it is grammatically incorrect; leading to all sorts of silliness.

[Hfran Morkai]

GM - I may be wrong here(Ntin - correct me if im off-sides!), but I think Ntin's questions were somewhat rhetorical.

 

I think he was listing the problems arising from the wording of a grammatically incorrect English sentence more than asking a question. Again, I may be wrong, thats just what I took from it.

 

That's also why I think there has been so much disagreement and arguing about the rule, because its not only "not well written", it is grammatically incorrect; leading to all sorts of silliness.

 

Perhaps but it is good to have discussion, after all it's in the official rules section and the points are open for interpretation.

 

EDIT: Sort of Terminators not having terminator armour, dear lord...

 

Good to keep a warrior's mind sharp.

[Ntin]

Looking at the codex again it is strange the amount of inconsistent writing in comparison to previous codices. Most character options lack “may” or “choose to”. An extremely literal interpretation of the rules mean by default each character would be forced to replace their bolt pistol or chains word for a bolter and their power armor for runic armor. An argument could be made that the “Options:” heading has some greater meaning than a label.

 

To draw a better example at what I am trying to get at. Wargear is also an optional component for any Space Wolf character. It is a legal rule to replace a Wolf Priest’s bolt pistol for a plasma pistol. What this means in terms of satisfying the “Replace bolt pistol with: …”rule is the following.

 

I am purchasing a plasma pistol and I am not purchasing a boltgun and I am not purchasing a storm bolter and I am not purchasing a combi-weapon.

 

If I instead decide keep the default bolt pistol then only one condition in the previously mentioned rule has changed. In either case a selected item and an empty item still hold the same worth for the purposes of the satisfying the rule. Even though Bobman’s signature berates this train of thought but these rules would be case of binary. In that the only correct answer would be “yes” or “no”.

 

@Morticon

The rule “Leaders of the Pack” is undoubtedly grammatically incorrect and I would go so far to suggest it is also logically incorrect.

 

@gil galed

A cleaver Space Wolf player could get four Jaws of the World Wolf into his list.

 

/edit Oh my, four replies since #9 I am not a very fast today.

[Legatus]

Looking at the codex again it is strange the amount of inconsistent writing in comparison to previous codices. Most character options lack “may” or “choose to”. An extremely literal interpretation of the rules mean by default each character would be forced to replace their bolt pistol or chains word for a bolter and their power armor for runic armor. An argument could be made that the “Options:” heading has some greater meaning than a label.

The meaning of "Options" is explained on page 81 in the Codex, where it is explained how Army List entries work.

 

Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so alongside the associated points cost for each. Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, neither or both provided you pay the points cost.

 

 

To represent this, no two characters may bear the same saga, nor may they bear the same psychic powers or wargear combination.

I find that statement quite clear.

[Bobman]

I'm reckon people have said as much before, but I'm sure they thought we could figure some stuff out for ourselves.

 

But as Legatus points out the codex operation has been explained. Are we really trying to finds faults in the options lists now?

 

No offense but I think this is a bit crazy.

[Morticon]

Perhaps but it is good to have discussion, after all it's in the official rules section and the points are open for interpretation.

 

 

Im totally with you on the first point!! :tu:

 

However, "open for interpretation" is where I'm disagreeing. While we are entitled to say what we think the rule means - it wouldnt matter as there is only one interpretation. That is the literal interpretation of that rule. That comes from understanding its structure and form. Additionally, in the case where the structure of the rule is grammatically unsound as to lead to ambiguity - thats where we step in to, as you say, interpret the points.

 

Legatus:

 

Not a flame at all mate- but how can you find a grammatically incorrect sentence quite clear? Isnt that the point Ntin is making?

This is the whole point of why there is debate.

You can say you find if very clear and offer your reasons but another person will say the other way.

 

This is not like the vast majority of other rules debates where things are often misread or misinterpreted.

 

It's grammatically incorrect and ambiguous (and as Ntin pointed out illogical). If you think it isn't then its not because you understand the rule, its because you haven't understood the grammar of the sentence and have read it as something its not. (And that sounds mad patronising - so apologies there not at all what im trying to do! Just trying to highlight the crux of the issue).

 

 

 

I'll stay out of the "option" chat as that should probably be split off from this thread.

 

 

EDIT: What interests me most, is if we are able to accurately draw a set of conclusions from this rule. If it is truly ambiguous in its wording, then we're at a loss and will have to d6 it 'till an FAQ comes out.

[Legatus]

Perhaps I do not get the finer points of gramatics because I am not a native english speaker, but I did not find that sentence difficult to understand. Ntin did explain in his original post how the meaning is to be interpreted, and if he was questioning whether that was the interpretation that one should logically get, then I did not catch that. His three questions at te bottom are about the application of the rule as interpreted, and the problem in that case is about what it means for a model to "bear a saga", and not about the construction of the sentence.

 

 

no two characters may bear the same saga

Is that not a correct way to state that you may not have two characters that have the same saga?

 

 

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

And isn't that the correct follow up to explain that neither may ypu have two characters that have the same psychic powers combination or the same wargear combination?

[Morticon]

See, the sentence is grammatically ambiguous because it can mean either this:

 

"the character may not bear the same psychic power"

and

"the character may not bear the same wargear combination"

 

OR it can mean:

 

"the character may not bear the same psychic power combination"

and

"the character may not bear the same wargear combination"

 

This is what people are arguing about.

Thats a blatant ambiguity. In addition to that I think Ntin is highlighting additional issues (i think ><; :tu: )

 

Edit: Im not a grammar buff - so if im wrong here, i'll be happily convinced otherwise!

[Legatus]

Hm, it may be that the "combinations" is not automatically interpreted as refering to the psychic powers as well, but at least the rule refers to "powers" (plural), so you could still interprete it so that two models would only count as having the "same powers" when both are the same.

[Ntin]

There were a number of good or otherwise interesting points brought up yesterday need a bit to think about them.

 

@Legatus #15

That is a good catch on “options”. I should not post things at 3 am.

 

@Legatus #18

“Is that not a correct way to state that you may not have two characters that have the same saga?”

That part of “Leaders of the Pack” is stated nicely. My issue is with each of the character entries having sagas being optional upgrades coupled with “empty” or “null” upgrades. For example taking a saga for the first character and not taking a saga for a second character satisfies “Leaders of the Pack”. Having the first character with a saga and another character with a different saga satisfies “Leaders of the Pack”. Then having two characters without a saga should dissatisfy “Leaders of the Pack”. As the previous pattern had established not taking a saga is still part of the consideration for satisfying “Leaders of the Pack”.

 

@Morticon #19

That is an interesting point about “combination” being applied to both “psychic powers” and “wargear”. I think though since “wargear” is singular and “powers” is plural. Then “combination” is attached to “wargear” to only. Since “psychic powers” is plural it does imply there is a pair of psychic powers.

Another question would be then is there still the same ordinarily involved with combination? Is taking Jaws of the World Wolf and Living Lightning the same as taking Living Lightning and Jaws of the World Wolf?

[Legatus]

Then having two characters without a saga should dissatisfy “Leaders of the Pack”. As the previous pattern had established not taking a saga is still part of the consideration for satisfying “Leaders of the Pack”.

That was what I was trying to adess in post #3.

 

"no two characters may bear the same saga"

 

If you have two characters with no saga, then are they both bearing the same saga? Which Saga is it that they are both bearing?

 

 

I think though since “wargear” is singular and “powers” is plural. Then “combination” is attached to “wargear” to only.

Isn't "wargear" plural? It refers to multiple pieces.

 

 

Another question would be then is there still the same ordinarily involved with combination? Is taking Jaws of the World Wolf and Living Lightning the same as taking Living Lightning and Jaws of the World Wolf?

You do not take powers or wargear in an order or sequence. A character can take two powers, so in the end you will have a character with two powers. You cannot have two characters with the same two powers.

[Ntin]

1. Both characters would not be bearing sagas.

 

2. Well wargear is not really a word but I would imagine the plural would be wargears. In the sentence it is “wargear combinations” with the plural on “combination”. Implying that there is more than one combination of wargear options that could be taken.

 

 

3. Autocorrect betrayed me there I meant “ordinality” not “ordinarily”. In a combination the order of objects is important where in a list or series the order of objects is not important.

[Legatus]

1. Both characters would not be bearing sagas.

Which means they are not bearing the same Saga. The requirement of "Leaders of the Pack" is satisfied.

 

 

2. Well wargear is not really a word but I would imagine the plural would be wargears.

Boltgun, Boltpistol, Frag and Krak grenades are a Marine's wargear. Add a CCW and it is still wargear. Tactical Marines and Assault Marines have different wargear. Space Wolves characters have to have different wargear.

 

 

In the sentence it is “wargear combinations” with the plural on “combination”. Implying that there is more than one combination of wargear options that could be taken.

If you mean the "Leaders of the Pack" rule, no, it says "wargear combination". As in, two characters are not allowed to have the same combination (single) of wargear.

 

Wolf Lord wargear: Bolt pistol, frostblade.

 

Wolf Guard Battle Leader wargear: Bolt pistol, powerweapon

 

They have different wargear combinations (plural) so it is allowed. The Wolf Guard Battle Leaders could not also have a frostblade, because then they would both have the same wargear combination.

 

 

3. Autocorrect betrayed me there I meant “ordinality” not “ordinarily”. In a combination the order of objects is important where in a list or series the order of objects is not important.

In math a combination generally is a set of elements without a particular order. There are different rules to calculate the set of elements with or without a distinct order.

 

But take poker or lotto as an example. You are trying to get a favourable combination of numbers or cards, but the sequence is not important.

 

You do not buy wargear in a sequence. There are no rules explaining it that way. Whether you replace a characters bolt pistol for a plasma pistol and his ccw for a powerweapon or you exchange his ccw for a powerweapon and his bolt pistol for a plasma pistol maes no difference in game terms. You will have a character with a plasma pistol and a powerweapon.

[Grey Mage]

@Morticon #19

That is an interesting point about “combination” being applied to both “psychic powers” and “wargear”. I think though since “wargear” is singular and “powers” is plural. Then “combination” is attached to “wargear” to only. Since “psychic powers” is plural it does imply there is a pair of psychic powers.

Another question would be then is there still the same ordinarily involved with combination? Is taking Jaws of the World Wolf and Living Lightning the same as taking Living Lightning and Jaws of the World Wolf?

 

"A rune priest may not have the same psychic powers as another rune priest"

 

Is about the same level of ambiguity. IE that, if you take option 1 and option 3 you can or cannot take option 1 and option 4 on a seperate model?

 

It would seem that having option 1 and option 3 is the same as having option 3 and option 1, as they are identical in form and function- the sum is the same. However option 2 and option 3 are not the same, as one part of them is different, and they are therefore "distinct".