Thank you very much for the solid clear answer. I would like to say again, a and one are not necessarily the same. a trooper can possess a combi rifle and one trooper (a single trooper) can possess a combi rifle offer difference nuance. Case closed, question answered.
Please tell me you're joking and the nuance of context here is not going over your head. I understand that it might not be perfectly clear, but there's a marked difference here. "You may move a Trooper to another Group without expending a CT" implies "you may do this every single time you move a Trooper", therefore that you can apply this rule recursively to each Executive Use of CT, which you can do multiple of, and that the interpretation of "each and every single Trooper you move between Groups is moved for free" is valid. It's not a 100% statement, but it's strongly implied. "You may move a single Trooper to another Group without expending a CT" in turn directly indicates that you can move only a single Trooper for free and implies that the rest of the Troopers you move you will need to pay for with CTs. It would be best if the phrase contained a further limit ("you may move a single Trooper per Active Turn to another Group without paying a CT", ideally. That's exactly the kind of nuance you guys need a primary English speaking editor for. Or at least somebody who's functionally bilingual and proficient in editing the target language (here, English). Those rules should be even more clear than my "single Trooper" example above. They should be absolutely unequivocal. Rulesets are part legal and part technical language. You can't approach them like prose or any other kind of writing. They should have a framework of recurring phrase patterns, each of those patterns should have an established meaning and context it is used in. Every single time a rule is single usage, a different phrase pattern should be used than the one you use when a rule allows recursive usage, etc.
Maybe it's a British English vs International/American English thing but saying "You can move a trooper in this phase without spending a CT" is identical to "You can move a single trooper in this phase without spending a CT" because "a trooper" is already singular.
Adding "single" between "a" and "trooper" doesn't change the logical meaning of the sentence, but it does put emphasis on it. That seems a bit more like a clarification you put in future revisions when and if it becomes clear misinterpretation is widespread and causes issues.
I think you're trying to say you think you can use the skill multiple times in the same phase? So your theory is that you can use Strategos level 2 four times to move four troopers in the same phase?
This has become circular and pointless. Congrats on choking down the discussion with repeated "concerned questions".
To the point of the above few posts, I think a better way to write the skill would be to outline the fact that it can be done once, not emphasize how many troopers can move. As @Mahtamori points out, there isn't really a functional difference when you add "single" in there without also stipulating that the skill can only be used once. "Once per tactical phase (or whatever it's called) the user of this skill can move a trooper from one combat group to another for free (instead of spending a CT)." Now, why do we need to outline this? Perhaps we don't, but I couldn't find any concrete rules governing the use of skills outside active/reactive turns. Hell, I don't even see any text telling us that we can only use a deployment skill once, so we must rely on the fact that it would be silly to be able to use Infiltration multiple times (i.e. until you pass the roll). Honestly, a better solution would be to have a blurb of text in the introduction of the skills section of the rules that says something to the effect of: "Skills that can be used outside of the Orders Phase (Strategos, Infiltration, etc.) may only be used once by the troopers possessing them during those phases."
