Space Wolf Typhoon

[Tanhausen]

Ok, here is the deal:

 

In my area people are trying to figure out how many Typhoon's they can fit in a squadron:

 

Alternatively a Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Land Speeder Typhoon armed with:

 

So... please help out a Brother here:

 

1.- You can have as many Typhoon as you want per squadron.

 

2.- You can only upgrade 1 single Typhoon

 

Thanks!

[dswanick]

C:SW, Pg.91 - Land Speeder squadron has an option entry which says "Any Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Land Speeder Tornado armed with..." follow by a list of add-on weapons, which does not include the Typhoon missile launcher. The next Option entry says "Alternatively a Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Land Speeder Typhoon armed with...". Strictly speaking a Space Wolves Land Speeder squadron should consist of either one(1) Typhoon and up to 2 non-Tornado Land Speeders or up to three(3) Tornados and standard Land Speeders with no Typhoon. The problem text is the "Alternatively a Land Speeder". Alternatively is giving you two mutually exclusive options and the "a" denotes a singular.

See the earlier C:SM, Pg.139 for an option entry which allows a squadron to mix and match Typhoons and Tornados in any number desired :

Options:

• Any Land Speeder may be upgraded with one of the following:
  

- a Typhoon missile launcher......................

- a Tornado pattern:

[Tanhausen]

Erm... thanks dswanick.

 

But for us non-native English speakers... would it be case 1 or case 2? xD

[dswanick]

Case 2 :P , plus you may not mix a Typhoon in a squadron with any Tornados. The squadron may only consist of one(1) Typhoon and 1-2 basic Land Speeders.

[timmytool]

C:SW, Pg.91 - Land Speeder squadron has an option entry which says "Any Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Land Speeder Tornado armed with..." follow by a list of add-on weapons, which does not include the Typhoon missile launcher. The next Option entry says "Alternatively a Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Land Speeder Typhoon armed with...". Strictly speaking a Space Wolves Land Speeder squadron should consist of either one(1) Typhoon and up to 2 non-Tornado Land Speeders or up to three(3) Tornados and standard Land Speeders with no Typhoon. The problem text is the "Alternatively a Land Speeder". Alternatively is giving you two mutually exclusive options and the "a" denotes a singular.

See the earlier C:SM, Pg.139 for an option entry which allows a squadron to mix and match Typhoons and Tornados in any number desired :

Options:

• Any Land Speeder may be upgraded with one of the following:
  

- a Typhoon missile launcher......................

- a Tornado pattern:

 

see I disagree I think any speeder without any of the first 2 dot point upgrade options can be upgraded to a typhoon

 

main reason: throughout the codex all options that could only be taken once just has the points listed (35 points) while all options that could be taken more then once has a points per model (40 points per model), the typhoon upgrade has "points per model"

 

the wording is intended to link "alternatively" to a specific "Land Speeder" i.e. "any land speeder without upgrades may..." not "one LS without upgrades may..."

 

also if you want to see a option entry that is designed to limit the usage of typhoons to one per squadron look at the C:DA RW support squadron(read land speeder squadron)

• One land Speeder may add a Typhoon missile launcher for +10 points.
  

[dswanick]

While I would love to agree with you, consider :

"A" = "One", siungular. An example:

One Land Speeder may...

Any Land Speeder may...

now which one does "A Land Speeder may..." come closest to? Look at the two previous options, each is written "Any Land Speeder may...", so why change it for this one option entry if not to denote a difference from "Any"? For that matter, why not just add it to the list of other "Any" upgrades you can take like the Assault cannon? Yes, it would be very clear if the had said "Any ... may replace...", "Any ... may upgrade ...", "One ... may upgrade ..." - but by common english useage "A" is equivalent to "One". This is further reinforced by their including the "Alternatively" qualifier before going on to list the Typhoon option, which is also what precludes the mixing of Typhoons and Tornados in SW LS squadrons.

To see how a unit entry would be written for it to do what you want it to - you need look no further than the earlier C:SM. That squadron allows exactly what you want and would have been a copy-paste to C:SW if that is what the author had wanted Wolves to have.

[muadib02]

I do not disagree with your logic or argument I just have to point out one thing.

 

in the context of that sentence "a" can mean either one or any

 

the problem is that

"A Land Speeder May" is equal to the thought that "any land speeder may" and "one land speeder may" The correct answer is a matter of intent. which we obviously do not know.

 

As well whoever said that you can only have a squadron of tempests or 1 typhoon....the alternatively refers to the upgrade ability...its perfectly valid to have a squad of 2 tempests and a typhoon.

[Dan VK]

I do not disagree with your logic or argument I just have to point out one thing.

 

in the context of that sentence "a" can mean either one or any

 

the problem is that

"A Land Speeder May" is equal to the thought that "any land speeder may" and "one land speeder may" The correct answer is a matter of intent. which we obviously do not know.

 

As well whoever said that you can only have a squadron of tempests or 1 typhoon....the alternatively refers to the upgrade ability...its perfectly valid to have a squad of 2 tempests and a typhoon.

'A' is still singular, and not synonymous with 'any'; just because you may select any of X does not mean you may select any number of X. Example: When someone says, "Hammer in a nail," it means hammer in any single nail, not hammer in as many nails as you care to.

 

I do agree that any number of Land Speeders may be upgraded, though. By the wording, every Land Speeder has the ability to be upgraded, but a single Land Speeder may not be upgraded with both options. "One" modifies "of the following", not "Any Land Speeder".

 

dswanick is correct. You may upgrade any number of Land Speeders to Land Speeder Tornadoes, but only one Land Speeder to a single Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Land Speeder Typhoon, and only if no other Land Speeders have been upgraded.

 

 

[EDIT: I looked in C:SM instead of C:SW. ;) ]

[dswanick]

The correct answer is a matter of intent. which we obviously do not know.

I would love to be able to upgrade my SW Land Speeders in any way I wanted, and claim that was the "intent" of the author. The prpblem was, if I intended to write a Land Speeder codex entry allowing a squadron of Land Speeders to be upgraded the way they can in Codex: Space Marines, I would have copy-pasted the C:SM entry. If I intended to have it work differently, I would reword the entry. I find it difficult to square Phil Kelly re-wording the entry if his intent was to copy Matt Ward's entry.

[Heimdall Skullcrusher]

For my 2 cents, I dont think the use of "a" is that defining to say that only 1 per squadron. If it said "one" that would be a different case. "A" is generic enough to represent each landspeeder you are upgrading. Specifically when in the points cost includes "per model" (implying more than one).

 

The weird wording is because they don't want you to create a Typhoon Tornado (or Typhornado).

 

Just because their worded it differently in C:SM doesn't mean that you can't do it in C:SW. Consistency isn't GW's strongest asset.

[Dan VK]

For my 2 cents, I dont think the use of "a" is that defining to say that only 1 per squadron.

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. 'a' and 'an' are always singular, except when they cannot be singular or plural, such as when discussing the letter 'a' (when it is a noun). 'a' is the singular indefinite article.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

I think dswanick and Dan VK are getting too into vocab :P

 

What they have said is all technically fine. I think they are putting too much faith in GW's writing skeeyulz.

 

They are basing something on the a.

 

But look at this: 40 pts per model

 

My point is this, and I am not here to argue with either of the two blokes, who have both put forwards perfectly fine answers.

 

Imagine someone talking to you.

"Yeah any Speeder may this, any Speeder may that. But, alternatively a Speeder may the other."

 

The whole context was about any. We slip in and out of past and present tense in conversation, even when only referring to the same one all throughout the conversation. GW has slipped in out of plural and singular tense with its bullet points.

 

Now if dswanick and Dan VK want to argue about it, that is fine. I don't. I am saying they have grasped something too tightly, when all that has happened is a looseness in Phil Kelly typing the entry out.

 

"Listen here boy, your three hot dogs.... you can upgrade any of them, for a small fee. You can swap the hot dog for a kransky. You can upgrade any of them to a double-dog - a second sausage of your choice.

Alternatively, you can only upgrade one of them with chilli sauce"

 

It just doesn't make sense. PK goes from speaking about what you can do to the whole squadron, to just a singular?! I don't think so.

 

A does mean one. But it does not mean only one exclusively.

 

"G'day, I'd like to buy some snacks for the trip out of town, what do you recommend?"

'Well I always like a bag of chips.'

"ONE BAG OF CHIPS, IS THAT ALL I CAN HAVE??!! ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!!" :)

' :) umm, I never said you couldn't take more, why would you think that?'

"Because a means one right?"

 

"So the coke, can I get a refill?"

'Yes, only one refill. Ever....'

No of course not, you can keep going back a zillionty times to keep getting a refill.

 

I buy three Speeders.

I upgrade a Speeder to a Typhoon. Then I go again and get a refill. Then I go again and get my last refill. I know I can only go three times because you can't have a double Typhoon Speeder.

 

+++

 

Now whilst I don't think this is really even an issue, if I want to be silly, I can also argue that 40 pts per model is clear proof, lolzors, that all Speeders can be upgraded.

If ONLY A ONE Speeder could be upgraded, then very clearly, because I am being pedantic about literally reading what has been written, the fact that is says per model, which is redundant if only one model per squadron can only ever be upgraded, is clear literary proof that that was not intended.

 

It is just a copy paste thing. Similarly, it is just a linguistic mistake by PK. A means one, but a does not mean only ever one.

 

+++

 

I could apply this logic to any as well.

Any Speeder may....

It never says all of them. It just says any of them. After that any has been chosen, that is it. It could have been number 1, 2 or 3. It could have been any of them. They are not being particular about which one is being chosen, but only one can be chosen.

 

"Pick any card."

 

+++

 

I don't want to get into a rules debate. I see all the pages the Monolith v Assassin thread has gone for, and I think people just want to argue/be pedantic/be right.

 

The way I have read the rule actually literally and literarily works just as fine as dswanick and Dan VK's reading of it.

Grasping something too tightly. Yes 90% of the time, a means one and only one. But as I have shown a does not always mean one.

I am sure your opponenets would be greatful if you stopped spamming Missile Fangs and started using some Typhoons ;)

[Isiah]

I don't want to get into a rules debate. I see all the pages the Monolith v Assassin thread has gone for, and I think people just want to argue/be pedantic/be right.

 

That is kinda the remit of the OR - trying to winkle out a precise RAW meaning from as you say, "GW's writing skeeyulz". It sometimes isn't pretty I agree, but a necessary evil nonetheless.

 

And actually, some things can't be resolved - usually due to two or more completely at loggerhead rules that were written many years apart, the oldest one in ignorance of the newer, or just through the writers not thinking through certain combinations properly.

 

Cheers

I

[dswanick]

I don't want to get into a rules debate. I see all the pages the Monolith v Assassin thread has gone for, and I think people just want to argue/be pedantic/be right.

 

That is kinda the remit of the OR - trying to winkle out a precise RAW meaning from as you say, "GW's writing skeeyulz". It sometimes isn't pretty I agree, but a necessary evil nonetheless.

 

And actually, some things can't be resolved - usually due to two or more completely at loggerhead rules that were written many years apart, the oldest one in ignorance of the newer, or just through the writers not thinking through certain combinations properly.

 

Cheers

I

This. I'm not saying the RAW for one typhoon is iron-clad, as is pointed out the "a" refers to an upgrade costing "40pts per model". A singular reference and a plural reference on the same upgrade. But as this is the -OR- I'm just trying to deal with the rule as it is written (badly :rolleyes: ). If we can find an absolute solution to break the disconnect between "a" and "per model" then great, I want to be able to upgrade all my models as I wish (and my LGG allows it, anyway). But either the key needs to be found or people need to be aware that different people are going to read and interpret the rule differently based on how they weigh the words used.

It's the same with all the -OR- discussions, I think. Each "side" stakes their claim on a particular interpretation until someone finds the hidden nugget which breaks the debate one way or the other or both sides present their cases so anyone reading the thread knows what the various interpretations have in the way of supporting arguments.

[Dan VK]

A does mean one. But it does not mean only one exclusively.

In your examples, it does say "a bag of chips" where "some chips" would be more accurate, and "refill" instead of "refills." I would smack a friend if I asked for a napkin at a rest stop and he handed me a single napkin, but that is what I asked for. The point of language is to communicate, and if the meaning is unclear, people fall back on what is actually said to derive meaning from the statement. Just because one person understands the meaning of a second person does not mean that the second person is using correct grammar, or that what the second person meant, and conveyed, is actually what that person said. For rules, we cannot simply ask the writer(s) for clarification, so we default to interpreting what is written literally.

 

 

In the +OR+ I care very little about how I think a rule should be played, and very much about how a rule states it is to be played (very different from how I actually play). I agree that GW writers have a poor grasp of the English language, but the same grammatically incorrect phrasing that drives us crazy also makes the rules easy to read (there are better ways to do this, but I will stay on topic). It is unfortunate that what is reasonable and what the rules say are not always the same thing. :)

 

Regarding ‘per’, that is not a reliable indication of the writer’s intent, and even if it was, it does not change the rest of the entry. Whether any Land Speeder eligible for a Typhoon upgrade may do so for forty points is irrelevant when only a single Land Speeder is eligible.

 

‘a’ is singular, therefore a single Land Speeder may be upgraded to a Typhoon. Anything else worded identically would have the same limitation (I cannot find anything with identical wording), and other examples, such as the Tornado upgrade, use different language. “’a’ is singular" stands up to scrutiny in every other entry I have read. Is there any RAW controversy?

 

I understand, and agree, that I am being pedantic, but that does not change what the entry directly states. Interpreting the rules by ignoring grammar when it is inconvenient allows all sorts of illegal listing.

 

 

[EDIT: Became more of a pedant.]

[Grimtooth]

When the entry is taken in the whole context, I am more willing to accept that more then one speeder can be upgraded. "A" being singular causes all sorts of problems on it's own, but not when read in the context of the entire entry with the points that Wilhelm explained.

 

As it is, just waiting for a FAQ. Is there an actual GW games development email or something?

[Dan VK]

"A" being singular causes all sorts of problems on it's own, but not when read in the context of the entire entry with the points that Wilhelm explained.

I am not trying to be dense (although I very well may be succeeding :) ), but what problems could 'a' being singular, like in all other forms of English, cause?

[Grimtooth]

"A" being singular causes all sorts of problems on it's own, but not when read in the context of the entire entry with the points that Wilhelm explained.

I am not trying to be dense (although I very well may be succeeding :D ), but what problems could 'a' being singular, like in all other forms of English, cause?

 

When as Wilhelm points out the codex author then goes on to mix it with the plural. This is not an open and shut case because you cannot take the "a" singular for the speeder without looking at the rest of the context of the rules entry.

[Dan VK]

When as Wilhelm points out the codex author then goes on to mix it with the plural. This is not an open and shut case because you cannot take the "a" singular for the speeder without looking at the rest of the context of the rules entry.

Considering no one here knows the intent of the writer, why should I not take the entry at face value? I also find the choice of "points per model" suspect, but as far as we know it is equally likely that the same text was used for every option with cost, regardless of specifics. The use of 'a' rather than 'any' is equally suspect, as 'alternately' makes the separate options exclusive. Are there any rules/listing problems caused by interpreting the entry as worded, meaning it costs X points per Land Speeder upgraded, but only a single Land Speeder may be upgraded?

 

 

[EDIT: Speelnig and topys.]

[Grimtooth]

When as Wilhelm points out the codex author then goes on to mix it with the plural. This is not an open and shut case because you cannot take the "a" singular for the speeder without looking at the rest of the context of the rules entry.

Considering no one here knows the intent of the writer, why should I not take the entry at face value? I also find the choice of "points per model" suspect, but as far as we know it is equally likely that the same text was used for every option with cost, regardless of specifics. The use of 'a' rather than 'any' is equally suspect, as 'alternately' makes the separate options exclusive. Are there any rules/listing problems caused by interpreting the entry as worded, meaning it costs X points per Land Speeder upgraded, but only a single Land Speeder may be upgraded?

 

 

[EDIT: Speelnig and topys.]

 

You are inadvertently adding your opinion into the argument because it never does say only or single.

 

As worded it gives you the options of upgrading your Land Speeders or upgrading a Land Speeder to another variant. The wording of the rule and the "points per model" can just as easily mean that you cannot outright have a Land Speeder Typhoon without first having a Land Speeder.

 

For example,

 

I can't pay for 2 Land Speeders and then add a Land Speeder Typhoon to then have a speeder squadron of 3. I have to pay for 3 Land Speeders, then upgrade a Land Speeder to a Typhoon, to have a Land Speeder Squadron of 3.

 

This includes the use of "alternatively" because while each Land Speeder has the options of upgrading a certain way each Land Speeder also has the option of upgrading to a Typhoon.

[Dan VK]

You are inadvertently adding your opinion into the argument because it never does say only or single.

I am advertently adding my opinion, as the rule clearly is not worded in a manner which leaves no doubt, and you are also adding your opinion. If we were not adding our opinions, we would be quoting the rule directly and not posting a single word more. May we please stick to the post and leave the poster out of the discussion? :lol: It does not add anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

'only' or 'single' are not necessary to prevent multiple Land Speeders from being upgraded, as 'a' means 'one'.

 

As worded it gives you the options of upgrading your Land Speeders or upgrading a Land Speeder to another variant. The wording of the rule and the "points per model" can just as easily mean that you cannot outright have a Land Speeder Typhoon without first having a Land Speeder.

 

For example,

 

I can't pay for 2 Land Speeders and then add a Land Speeder Typhoon to then have a speeder squadron of 3. I have to pay for 3 Land Speeders, then upgrade a Land Speeder to a Typhoon, to have a Land Speeder Squadron of 3.

I agree. The use of 'upgrade' also prevents us from adding another model without paying for the Land Speeder first. My point is that we do not know why that particular wording was used, but we do know what the wording states.

 

This includes the use of "alternatively" because while each Land Speeder has the options of upgrading a certain way each Land Speeder also has the option of upgrading to a Typhoon.

'Alternatively' makes the Land Speeder Typhoon upgrade an exclusive choice.

[Brother Landrain]

I think that the easiest way to decide the issue is to look at other entries in the codex...

 

Any where were ONLY ONE model is eligible for an upgrade thr price is in all instances I can find... a flat value.

 

For example Thunderwolf Cavalry...

 

ANY options have XX points per model.

 

SINGULAR options have a flat points value.

 

In my opinion, this is a case of a spell/grammar checker error.

 

It also makes much more sense to allow any number of Typhoons.

 

Otherwise, you end up with the wierd situation , where for example the Dark Angels, who arguabbly invented the AC armed Tornado, can onl have one in a five model squadron, but all other chapters get three in three..

 

The BA version is also where I look, notice how th SM then SW then BA versions change and become clearer?

 

GW is just too lazy to actually erratta and reference new codex's for obvious mistakes...

 

Join Games Workshop, where WE not the Customer is always RIGHT!

[Brother Valerius]

You are inadvertently adding your opinion into the argument because it never does say only or single.

I am advertently adding my opinion, as the rule clearly is not worded in a manner which leaves no doubt, and you are also adding your opinion. If we were not adding our opinions, we would be quoting the rule directly and not posting a single word more. May we please stick to the post and leave the poster out of the discussion? ^_^ It does not add anything meaningful to the discussion.

 

Dan, I do believe that what you ask for is exactly what Brother Ramses was doing. It was not a personal attack, but rather pointing out what he felt to be a flaw in your argument.

[Dan VK]

In my opinion, this is a case of a spell/grammar checker error.

I find this very, very likely. I have seen this topic brought up online and in person, in a friendly game and at a tournament, since shortly after the codex was released. Non-English printings of the codex (I can vouch for the French and German versions, at least) use a plural in place of 'a'.

 

Dan, I do believe that what you ask for is exactly what Brother Ramses was doing. It was not a personal attack, but rather pointing out what he felt to be a flaw in your argument.

"You are inadvertently adding your opinion into the argument" is entirely unnecessary. My argument is not in any way diminished because it is based on my interpretation of the rules.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

In my opinion, this is a case of a spell/grammar checker error.

I find this very, very likely. I have seen this topic brought up online and in person, in a friendly game and at a tournament, since shortly after the codex was released. Non-English printings of the codex (I can vouch for the French and German versions, at least) use a plural in place of 'a'.

 

I don't mean be come across rude, but it seems a little mean to argue against multiple Typhoons on the a issue, yet more than one foreign C:SW uses plural in its place. And you knew about it ^_^

 

The Templar Raider was missing assault ramps, or something like that. And the German version allowed it. I don't think anyone said a thing about not letting Templar players playing it according to what everyone else had.

 

It seems somewhat pedantic to me, just for the sake of argument. I don't understand the point of it. The discussion was not to get to the root of the rules, because (if the a was not already apparent from Intent, which was not some mystic thing in this particular case, but was in fact more than clear) two foreign printings make it very clear what the a was and is.

 

It was exactly and precisely the way I described it. It seems like you were aiming to say 'well, categorically it is not clear, so I will argue against it.'

 

"I'm technically not wrong, because those versions are not in English"

Wow.

 

I don't resent you for it. But when you knew full well what the a was from other sources, even if you did not want to read the clear intent from the unit entry itself, you told other players that they could not take more than one typhoon, so you are actually misleading them, and that just makes my eyes spin. Even though you knew they could take "plurals" of them.

 

This is why I dodge extended forays in this forum nowadays, and try to avoid "discussions". I can argue against you, so I will. This kind of action chases me away. What a waste.