The Book of Honor Guard of the Blasted Lands

[dok]

You are correct that Honor Guard [of the blasted lands] is the name of the unit, and precedent would suggest individual figures should be referred to as "a honor guardsman", or "a member of the honor guard", or "a guard in the honor guard" (a-la 10th regiment). However, that's three different precedents, which suggests to me that this is an area where wording is flexible and you should do what sounds right.

In this case I find using Honor Guard to refer to both the unit as a whole and the individuals to feel more intuitive, even if it's a bit ambiguous. Individuals are a Honor Guard in the Honor Guard.

I could see using "a Honor Guardsman" instead, but I don't mind it this way.

[Just_a_Bill]

The fact that the MRT, Imperium, and 10th happen to use three different ways to solve the problem doesn't mean that not solving the problem is an option, does it? Even if I could pretend that "wording flexibility" justifies creating a new problem for the design matrix, the question remains: Do you want to have to add a new master VC design constraint that says never make another Honor Guard? That seems contrary to the game's longstanding design goal of maintaining a robust unit interaction system that continues to function as new units come into being.

But maybe the real answer is "ehh, who cares?" If so, let's just get it out on the table and that will shut me up.

[Scytale]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

But maybe the real answer is "ehh, who cares?" If so, let's just get it out on the table and that will shut me up.

ehh, who cares?

Yeah, you're right, we made it a pain to make more Honor Guard units in the future. I'm not particularly concerned about that possibility, though. If we really need to, we can errata this.