That's one trooper from the subset of units. Not one trooper from each subset of units. IMPORTANT When creating a Fireteam that includes Wildcard Troopers, the player must include at least one Trooper from the Units listed for that Fireteam in the Sectorial chart, or a Trooper that counts as a member of one of those Units.
You can keep quoting that all you like, you're still ignoring the pertinent word, "units" in "units listed". It's plural. If it worked the way you wanted it to, it would have to be singular (e.g. "a unit listed") or include a clause such as "..one of the units listed..". Under N4 if a special fireteam lists troopers from 2 (or more) units (and doesn't include any clause such as "up to..") then at least one trooper from each of those units must be included to form that special fireteam and cannot be replaced with a wildcard.
Are you trying to be funny or something? Are you taking the piss right now? Of course it would have a clause such as "one of those units" . Because it bloody well does. I even underlined and bolded that clause.
I haven't followed the broader discussion, but will weigh in on the narrow grammar question. The phrase "at least one Trooper from the Units listed" unambiguously means a single trooper, which must be one of the units listed. The alternative phrasing would be "at least one Trooper from each of the Units listed," which would mean if there are n units listed then you need n troopers, one from each of the units. Of course a translation or grammar error is possible, so I can't say what the designers intended. But, the grammar they used has only one meaning.
You asked a question and you don't like the answer, responding with snark and derision. You can bold whatever text you want, it doesn't make your parsing of it correct. I'm afraid it doesn't, it can be read that way, but with the use of the plural it can also be read as one trooper from each unit listed. It would need to read "..at least one trooper from one of the units listed..." or "..at least one trooper from a unit listed.." to be unambiguous. Honestly, any better phrasing would clear it up.
Well, I'm not going to argue, because this one isn't a matter of opinion. The grammar isn't ambiguous, it simply can't mean what you think it could. Nothing more to say.
And yet, you offer nothing to back up your position aside from an assertion without evidence. Why bother posting at all if you're not going to add anything of any value?
Here, mate, it's not about whether I like the answer or not, it's that I've from the start referenced that rule, describing how I do not think it is sufficient to limit Fireteam restrictions in the way Fireteams used to be restricted before; and you use exactly that rule to try and prove that the rule is sufficient - and that's leaving aside that you're taking liberties with logical reasoning. (By the way, the rules are missing the word "each" that you keep referring to) So, if you actually want to answer the question you're either going to have to find more rules that are unambiguous about how Fireteam formation is limited in the way you say it is, or you're going to have to construct a rigid logical reasoning. "Re-read the rules" or "you're parsing it wrong" isn't actually going to cut it, now is it? Or to use an analogy; I'm never going to show you how to calculate an NP complete problem by telling you you're counting wrong. If I'm going to do that I'm actually going to have to construct the entire proof.
