Wow! Thank all the D.netters who take my word as an important one.
-=-=-
Short story:
"The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows:" RAW tenants say it make an exemption to the non-duplication rule, within a single unit.
"RAI" tenants say it cancels that rule altogether for that objects.
-=-=-
What I see is an opposition between a minority, on one side, with a rigourous reading of rules, vs all others (20 at present), with a relaxed reading of rules.
The opposition is about method, nothing else. Different method leads to different conclusion, and I trust all participants in the present discussion to be honest in what they say and not wanting to gain any undue advantage as potential WE players or opponent.
But using different method does lead to different conclusion.
I'm quite used to read Dyvym and Dalamar arguments about rules, and I have a similar approach. We try to read what words tell exactly, no more, no less, before we start interpretation.
I'm quite confident that when the three of us reach the same conclusion about a point of rule, this is what rule actually say. But 'what they' say is not necessarily 'what they mean'.
What rules say does not allow duplication to several units: I've seen rules telling so, and I've seen no rule quote telling otherwise. 17 people may be convinced that unlimited duplication is possible, but they did fail to argue with valid RAW arguments, not because they lack material, but because the material they use is not as strong as a rule plainly written.
As far as I could understand it, the tenants of the 'duplication' side had a first reading of the rules, did consider that it could allow duplication, and tried to find support to that belief.
I may have caricatured that way of understanding rules as "RAI", and people who reached that conclusion may not recognize themselves in my caricature. Apologize if that is the case.
By the way, there have been quite a few cases when GW had to issue one or even two FAQs before their intention matched the rules as amended.
It has been the case for Dark Elves 7th ed "null shards", which were magic items allowing duplication, where the initial writing seemed to support unlimited duplication until an FAQ restricted to a limitation within a single unit (i.e. one unit could take as many null shards as it could afford, but then no other unit could).
@ Gidean
I do say and maintain, as you say, that 'no duplication' is the only conclusion with a detailed rule analysis and all other interpretations were opinion. And that's my 'opinion' indeed.
As I said above, that's a different methodology. A detailed and rigourous rule analysis can only conclude with 'no duplication'.
But I don't say that a detailed and rigourous rule analysis is the only way to play, otherwise I would not back up D.net's onw FAQ, which sometimes departs from the strictest rule analysis.
What I mean & belive is that a rules discussion should start with a rigourous rule analysis. Then the next step is to build on this rules analysis and decide whether it is reasonable (i.e. whether RAI would be a better way to play).
@ Haagrum:
"the only agreed-upon position (and apologies, Calisson, if I'm putting words in your mouth) is "Ask your opponent or the TO which approach should be used and prepare accordingly."" Maybe I did not say that exactly , but you managed to express exactly what I meant.
@ all
This thread reached its intent, which is to show that this point of rule is not consensual.
If you play against someone who is bickering with rules, then chances are that he would resent unlimited ducplication of a specific Enchanted arrow.