[AB3][Eldar] Wraithlord validation

[Russell]

The Codex Eldar entry for the Wraithlord says that it may be armed with a heavy weapon... AB fails validation if you dont take one.

I can see why you would want to flag it as invalid, but I think a better option would be to arm it with a shuricannon by default and let the user change it to whatever (including deselecting it) - without making it a requirement.

Russell.

 

[Ghaz]

May, as in is allowed or is permitted to. So where does it say that it may have no heavy weapon at all?

 

[Russell]

All other entries say "is equipped with one of the following" or "may replace their x with one of the following for the listed points costs"
The Wraithlord entry says "may be equipped with one of the following"

"allowed or is permitted to" implies permitted not to... unless you are referring to "must", but we're talking about "may"... but now we're arguing semantics of the english language - lets not go there...

Anyway, the Codex seems pretty clear to me... Do I need to go and find an official clarification for this?

 

[Ghaz]

It says 'may be', not 'may chose to be'. The only choice that gives you is in the weapon. Having no heavy weapon isn't on that list, is it?

 

[Russell]

Ok, it doesn't explicitly say anywhere that you may not take one of the choices... however, if you are going to take that stance, I'd like you to consider the following other AB units that are handled differently...

Have a look at the Guardian Defender Squad entry...
"The squad may be joined by a heavy weapon platform..."
Yet I'm not forced to take a Weapon Platform with every Guardian Defender squad

Now have a look at any of the Aspect warrior squads...
"One model in the squad may be upgraded to an Exarch for..."
AB doesn't force me to take an Exarch with every Aspect squad.

Guardian Storm Squad...
"The Guardians may be armed with Plasma and Krak grenades..."
and
"The unit may be joined by a Warlock..."
Both of these are considered optional by AB

ANY troops choice...
"...may be mounted in a Wave Serpent..."
I don't have to take a Wave Serpent with every unit

Need I go on?

For EVERY other entry in the codex where the word "may" is used, it is regarded as optional, except in the case of the Wraithord.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand how it can be interpreted any other way?



Russell.

 

[Russell]

Oh, and BTW, you'll also notice the Heavy Weapons are under the Options heading in the Wraithlord entry... denoting optional equipment ;-)

Russell.

 

[Ghaz]

From www.dicitonary.com

MAY
aux.v. Past tense might

1. To be allowed or permitted to: May I take a swim? Yes, you may.
2. Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility: It may rain this afternoon.
3. Used to express a desire or fervent wish: Long may he live!
4. Used to express contingency, purpose, or result in clauses introduced by that or so that: expressing ideas so that the average person may understand.
5. To be obliged; must. Used in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents.

As you can see, the word 'may' in and of itself NEVER indicates that there is a choice or a lack thereof. It only indicates what is permitted. So your examples read as follows:

"The squad is allowed or permitted to be joined by a heavy weapon platform..."

"One model in the squad is allowed or permitted to be upgraded to an Exarch for..."

"The Guardians are allowed or permitted to be armed with Plasma and Krak grenades..."

"The unit is allowed or permitted to be joined by a Warlock..."

"...is allowed or permitted to be mounted in a Wave Serpent..."

So again, does the wording for the Wraithlord allow or permit you to field it without a heavy weapon? Because the use of the word 'may' does not always indicate a choice in the matter.

 

[Russell]

Apparently, I do need to go on.... :?

First off, just get over the definition of "may"... I stopped arguing about that ages ago...

Do you have an Eldar Codex?
Have you actually read it?

The Heavy Weapons are in the Options section of the Wraithlord entry... NOT in the Weapons section of the entry.
This indicates they are optional (and since your so hung up on dictionary definitions, I've added one for optional for you)

op·tion·al (ŏp'shə-nəl)
adj.

Left to choice; not compulsory or automatic.

Just like the weapons platforms, warlocks, exarchs, grenades, etc.

If you notice the War Walker entry (which DOES NOT have optional weapons) the various Heavy Weapon options appear in the Weapons section of the entry.

And if I still haven't convinced you, then I give up on the Wraithlord (I'll just modify the files myself), but since (by your reasoning) there is nothing in the codex that says I can explicitly NOT take a weapons platform with every guardian defender squad, could you update the AB files to flag that as an error... and the same for all of the Aspect squads (etc...)

Russell.

 

[HakujinGrande]

Ghaz, I;m with Russel on this one. The word "may" or the phrase "is allowed or permitted to" does not imply being manditory.

I add another example to the list above:

In the SM codex, it says you may take a command squad for a character, it dosen't say you must.

In my opinion, only the word must makes an option manditory.

 

[Ghaz]

I never stated it was mandatory. I stated that in and of itself it does not indicate a choice. You have to read the rest of the sentence to determine if it's mandatory or if there is a choice involved because one single word does NOT tell us.

So again, the word 'may' does not make anything mandatory and the word 'may' does not indicate a choice. All it does is indicate what is allowed or permitted, nothing more.

And as for the the heavy weapons being 'optional', that's not what the codex states. They're listed as 'options', not 'optional'. There is a big difference between the two words. From the Wordsmyth Online Dictionary:

OPTION

2. something that is or may be chosen, often from several possibilities

You have three options for dessert.

An 'option' can be a choice of alternatives. I don't see 'no weapon' on the list of alternatives, do you?

Anyway, if you want the answer to the question refer to page 95 of the 2003 Chapter Approved Compendium.

 

[HakujinGrande]

Okay, with the corrections from CA 2003, you are correct, but not for the right reason.

Going just off the wording of the codex, and ignoring the correction for the sake of argument:

Just because the options section does not list not taking a heavy weapon, does not mean is is not a valid selection.

For an example, the Space Marine codex, in the Options section (just like the Options section of the Wraithlord) of the Tactical Squad states:

"The squad may be equipped with frag grenades at +1 point per model and/or krak grenades at +2 per model."

There is no mention of an option of not taking grenades, so by your logic, each Tac squad would be forced to take grenades of at least one type.
Same for the Command, Scout, Assault, Bike, Scout Bike, and Devastator Squads.

 

[Ghaz]

Again, I NEVER said that the wording of the original rule required a heavy weapon, did I? No. I only stated that the word 'may' in and of itself NEVER indicates a choice or a lack thereof. It only indicates what is allowed or permitted. Russell's intial assessment that you could have a Wraithlord without a heavy weapon was correct, BUT FOR THE WRONG REASON. You have to read THE ENTIRE SENTENCE to determine it's intent, not just a single word.

Take these sentences as an example:

"When the light turns green, you may proceed through the intersection."

There is no indication in that sentence that a choice is given or denied to do anything other than proceed through the intersection when the light turns green. All it does is clarify that when the light turns green, he is permitted to proceed through the intersection. Can he sit and wait for the light to turn yellow? Can he make a left or a right turn? We don't know because the sentence only indicates what he's allowed to do, not whether he has a choice to do it or something else or not.

 

[HakujinGrande]

Funny, it looks like that's exactly what you said in the second and forth posts.

Whatever, with the errata, his original question is answered. This forum is not for debating the semantics of the English language and any further discussion is clearly not going to be constructive, so it's probably best to just drop the matter.