Sicarius confusion

[Brother Valerius]

When playing a game with a friend somewhat recently, we ran into a minor disagreement on how Battle-Forged Heroes works. The disagreement stems from the following wording: "One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have...." There are two ways to parse this phrase, and to be honest, I consider both of them to be valid reading. Rephrasing a bit, the two ways you can interpret this are "In an army, one Tactical squad that includes Sicarius can have", and "In an army that includes Sicarius, one Tactical squad can have".

 

I personally believe that the intent of the rule is the latter, that Sicarius does not need to be attached to the squad for them to gain the special rule. However, as the other interpretation is also a correct way to read the sentence, I am at a loss for which one should be considered correct. Is there a consensus in the 40k community on which way this rule should be read?

[Dan VK]

I do not know if there is a consensus, but I interpret the rule the same way you do. It reads "One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have...." It does not read "One Tactical squad that includes Sicarius can have...."

[Lord Doyok]

There shouldn't be any confusion here as the wording is simple and straight to the point. If the army has Sicarius, you can give one Tactical Squad a veteran skill for free.

 

Furthermore, the veteran skill must be selected during list building. You cannot simply change from one Tact to another before the game begin.

[greatcrusade08]

if sicarius is meant to be in the unit, they would use the word joined or attached, as they do throughout the BRB and dexes

[Grey Mage]

Sicarius isnt ever part of the unit in the way this would require. Its similar to how a wolf gaurd can join a grey hunter pack but doesnt count towards the free special weapon.

[Legatus]

Compare:

 

Chaplain (p. 58)

"He, and all members of a squad he has joined, are fearless (...)"

 

Sicarius (p. 85)

"One Tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have one of the following special rules: (...)"

 

Pedro Kantor (p. 90)

"If your army includes Pedro Kantor, your Sternguard Veteran squads are scoring units."

 

Lysander (p. 91)

"Any model in a squad Lysander has joined can re-roll failed 'to hit' rolls when shooting with heavy bolters, storm bolters, bolters and bolt pistols."

 

"If you include Lysander then all units in your army exchange the combat tactics special rule for the stubborn universal special rule."

 

Shrike (p. 92)

"Shrike (and models in his squad) benefit from the infiltrate special rule (...)."

 

"If you include Kayvaan Shrike then all units in your army exchange the Combat Tactics special rule for the Fleet universal special rule."

 

Khan

"Kor'sarro Khan, and models in his unit, benefit from the hit and run and furious charge special rules (...)."

 

"If you include Kor'sarro Khan then all units in your army exchange the Combat Tactics special rule for the ability to outflank."

[DarkGuard]

The others all have the correct reading of this, if Sicarius is in the army, one of your Tactical squads gets a special rule. It doesn't matter where he is, he could be on the opposite side of the board. The rule is describing Sicarius's Tactical Marines being veterans of many battles, having picked up skills. It's not describing Sicarius running along behind them shouting instructions on how to properly take out a tank or stay behind a tree until the enemy gets close.

[Brother Valerius]

Thanks, guys. While I agree with the interpretation of the rule you all have given, I needed solid arguments to put forth in case I have an opponent disagree in the future.

[muadib02]

the sentence "One tactical squad in an army that includes Sicarius can have one of..." Means that if you have Sicarius in your army, one Tac Squad gets a veteran skill. Its simple grammar and not really that confusing.

When reading, unless you are assuming the authors made grammatical mistakes, you always link modifiers to the closest thing they could modify (unless there is punctuation, but that is not the case) Therefore "In an army that includes Sicarius, One tactical Squad can have one of the ..." is a perfectly valid representation of the wording in the book as all you are doing is moving subsections of the sentence around and adding a comma.

Simply put

The army includes Sicarius

The Tactical Squad can have a veteran skill

 

*English Major Rage (Ignore as necessary)*

 

As well there is no interpreting going on here. This is a very black and white English sentence. Anyone out in the real world who tells you that this sentence means anything other than exactly what it says did not pay much attention when they learned the English Language. The one thing which has bothered me about 40k since I started playing is that there are poorly worded rules which are exploited, but I understand that no system is perfect. What really gets me going is when people pick arguments over clearly worded, grammatically correct, logically valid sentences rules such as Battle Hardened Heroes. Rules which leave no room for interpretation, and which people still fail to understand. In all honesty this rule is as simply stated as it should need to be.

 

*End Rage*