For those debating 4 Rune Priests with JOWW

[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.