Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

1. Select Chainsword. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace chainsword with Power weapon.
2. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace pistol with Power weapon.
3. Go back to Melee rules. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged pistol and/or melee weapon with TWO of the following. That's against the rule.
--Error--Rules not followed--Start Over--
1. Select Chainsword. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace chainsword with Power weapon.
2. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Ranged rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace bolt pistol with Grav-pistol.
3. Go back to Melee rules. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." Check.
4. Go back to Ranged rule. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." Check.
--Yay!--

It's the same with the Relics.
1. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Relics rules. It says you can "replace one weapon with one of the following [relics]:". Replace bolt pistol for Burning Blade.
2. Select chainsword. Go to Relics rules. It says you can "replace one weapon with one of the following [relics]:". Replace chainsword for the Shield Eternal.
3. Go back to Relic rule. It says you may "replace one weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged TWO weapons with TWO of the following. That's against the rule.
--Error--Rules not followed--Start Over--

*Edited for clarity*

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


you just did the same thing! you cant break the sentence down because it takes the whole thing out of context... so now we are both wrong, huh?

the point of the and/or is so you dont have to switch your weapons if you dont want to, meaning if you wanted to change out just your bolt pistol and not your close combat weapon you could do it, thats what the or is for. The "and" is for if you want to replace both of them, as in you BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and Your CCW for one item...

Breaking the sentence down to read "and" and "or" doesn't take it out of context. The point of "and/or" in a sentence is to create two scenarios, one of which breaks into two further sub-scenarios. "X and/or Y" can have three results, only X, only Y, or X and Y. It effectively is shorthand for two longer sentences/phrases, "You may replace X and Y with Z, or you may replace X or Y with Z."

If you said "I can have pizza and/or wings for dinner," it means I can have pizza or wings or both.

But once you've added the second part of the sentence, you have to complete that first part of the sentence before moving on.

"I can have pizza and/or wings for one of the following: dinner or 4th meal." You can't have pizza for one meal and wings for another, that's against the grammatical rules.

What you keep doing, whether you realize it or not, is adding words.

You said "the 'and' is for if you want to replace both of them, as in your BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and your ccw for one item."

Except you've added the word "each" into the ruling. The rule reads "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following" NOT "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following EACH." You are treating those two sentences as functionally the same. They are not.

Similarly, you previously said "the 'bolt pistol and/or melee weapon' part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list."

Again though, you've added the word "each" and "another" into the RAI somewhere where it does not necessarily exist. You, again, are treating "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following" as equal to either "replace EACH of your BP and/or MW with one of the following" or "replace your BP with one of the following and/or another melee weapon with one of the following." In the first you're given explicit permission to replace them separately from the "and" while still replacing both, while in the second you're breaking it up sufficient to create two separate replacements.


Elric Greywolf, if he's saying what I think he's saying, has it right, assuming RAI is not set to allow replacement for two "melee/ranged/relic" items. You can't take two items from any one of the lists, but may mix and match between the melee, ranged, and relic lists.

 juraigamer wrote:
You guy are still discussing this? I wasn't aware there was anything more to it than was on page 159...

IKR!

Why would they write "A model can replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following." if it didn't, you know, mean one of the following. Had they said "... any of the following." there would be no debate if people could select multiple. The foot note for the armor indomitus could remain the exact same. However G-dubs went out of their way to say "ONE of the following"

So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

From wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

Wording is the same, but I can't find this on CSM FAQ.

It has come up with every codex release except Daemons. GW either can't or won't clarify.

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

Wording is the same, but I can't find this on CSM FAQ.

Wording is the same, and it's not in the FAQ. I assume he's remembering that the majority consensus at the time seemed to be that because you can swap one weapon you can only swap one weapon. Of course, that was Chaos Space Marines rather than the poster boys.

So i am looking at my C:SM at the moment. I have read most of this thread ( i admit its not every word). I am not seeing the one thing that, to me allows multiple relics.

pg.163 Chapter Master entry. Under the options heading it gives bullet points. We all know what they look like. The 5th one down reads "A Chapter master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear (here is the key part imo) AND/OR Chapter Relics.

If you can only exchange 1 for 1 how can you have AND/OR?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found another entry that clinches the argument for me.
pg.158 of the codex. Its the discription of the army list entries.
lots of circled numbers being described at the bottom of the page. Number 8 is the important one.

#8 "Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon "and/or" another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each."

It goes on to describe pts, ded transports and such. I just included the relavant part.

Because you can exchange for a ranged weapon and a relic.
That has literally nothing to do with exchanging for two relics.

The relic rules do not say and/or.

The presence of "and/or" in the Melee weapons implies that they want you to be able to take multiples from that list.

Relics have not got that and/or, so I would say that means they don't want you to take multiples.

#8 "Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon "and/or" another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each."

So I will take an example of a random Space Marine Captain. Captain Bob of the Super Space Monkies Chapter.

Bob carries a Bolt gun and a chain sword.
He wants to replace his Bolt gun with his chapters revered Bolter..Primarchs Wrath. according to the rules he can for 20 points.
He decides he needs some protection from the mean traitor Imperial Guard he is going to be fighting today so he trades his Chain Sword for the Sheild Eternal. Paying the 35 (unsure of this cost) points. He could also don the most super spiffy armor his Chapter has, however that makes him rather expensive.

Now Captain Bob has obeyed the discription of the Options location on his Army List entry. Changed one or both weapons and payed the cost for them.

Wether or not the actual relic entry on his options page says and/or or not. The discription of the options box listed in the codex says you CAN change one OR both, as long as you pay for them.

That's incorrect. The relic requirements are more specific than the chapter master options.

Replacing 3 is not replacing 1. Bob has made illegal selections.

I can understand the arguement with the sheild, I do not agree, but I can see the issue. The armor, you replace your armor with it. Since it has been argeed that since it doesnt require a weapon swap it is a ok trade.

I am confused though. I would think that a section of the army rulebook thats states trading multiple weapons is OK as long as you pay for it would basicly mean if he decided to carry the Emperors Q-tip and Dorns toilet paper as weapons ok....As long as you pay to swap your Bolt gun (pistol, or Bolt gun) and Chain sword.

I mean its in the army RULEBOOK?! I admit I am new to the game so please please show me something that says disregard what army rulebook says. I am having a hard enough time figuring out all of the "this is the rule from the BRB" oh but this book says this so ignore the BRB...to add something that I THINK should be there. I believe, and no offense meant, I will follow the book but find a way to spend the points for the second relic should my opponent desire it only be one.

Alexi wrote:
I can understand the arguement with the sheild, I do not agree, but I can see the issue. The armor, you replace your armor with it. Since it has been argeed that since it doesnt require a weapon swap it is a ok trade.

I am confused though. I would think that a section of the army rulebook thats states trading multiple weapons is OK as long as you pay for it would basicly mean if he decided to carry the Emperors Q-tip and Dorns toilet paper as weapons ok....As long as you pay to swap your Bolt gun (pistol, or Bolt gun) and Chain sword.

I mean its in the army RULEBOOK?! I admit I am new to the game so please please show me something that says disregard what army rulebook says. I am having a hard enough time figuring out all of the "this is the rule from the BRB" oh but this book says this so ignore the BRB...to add something that I THINK should be there. I believe, and no offense meant, I will follow the book but find a way to spend the points for the second relic should my opponent desire it only be one.

You should actually read the rules for the relic section in your codex. Not just the chapter master options. You should understand the difference between the two.

umm I would seriously like to know where you are getting Chapter master? My example used a Captain and the rules section I quoted was ( am looking at the codex now for the page) page 158. Titled The Emperor's Sword.

The how to use the army list page. highlighted number 8.

as for the relics page. page 127. it states only one of EACH item may be choosen per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, please help me understand where the only 1 per character is. page number? FAQ? fortune cookie that i wouldnt get causse they are yuckie? please? I would rather NOT be TFG

Alexi wrote:
umm I would seriously like to know where you are getting Chapter master? My example used a Captain and the rules section I quoted was ( am looking at the codex now for the page) page 158. Titled The Emperor's Sword.

Sorry. Irrelevant difference - someone else used chapter master.

as for the relics page. page 127. it states only one of EACH item may be choosen per army.

Page 159 - your know, the actual rules for purchasing Chapter Relics (point costs and restrictions).

So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

And yet, the How to use the army entry states that if it says and/or you may replace one or both. so since the How to use this book page says you can replace both, where are you getting that 2 isnt legal? Yes...1 isnt 2 cause 2 is more then one and the individual entry says 1. However....just please. read page 158. all of it. its one page. if then you still say no, please give me a page/rule from a book, or an faq. or heck even from some high muckity muck at GW works. Opinions are great....for just that. you opinion

rigeld2 wrote:

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

Yeah twice. I'll admit though, its unclear. If they wanted just one, they'd have used the special issue wargear wording instead of the current one.... but if they wanted it the other way they could have used the ranged,melee,or special weapons rulings. We'll have to wait and see how tourneys handle it... and wait much much longer to see how an FAQ handles it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It is only saying the model can replace one weapon for one relic. So you can't replace one weapon for two relics.

RAW it makes no additional restriction. You are using implied logic that you cannot use the list again with another weapon.

At best all you can argue is that its ambiguous. Because its perfectly logical to allow the model to place a weapon with a relic as long as he has one to replace.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

And I would argue you are using similar logic. You are misapplying the use of the word 'one' in the armory rule. All it is saying is that selecting a relic is a one to one weapon for relic, and not two for one, one for two, etc. Implying it means anything more is arguing RAI.

 winterman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It is only saying the model can replace one weapon for one relic. So you can't replace one weapon for two relics.

RAW it makes no additional restriction. You are using implied logic that you cannot use the list again with another weapon.

At best all you can argue is that its ambiguous. Because its perfectly logical to allow the model to place a weapon with a relic as long as he has one to replace.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

And I would argue you are using similar logic. You are misapplying the use of the word 'one' in the armory rule. All it is saying is that selecting a relic is a one to one weapon for relic, and not two for one, one for two, etc. Implying it means anything more is arguing RAI.

right, so my 10 man guard squad can take] two guard, and arm them with one heavy weapon according to the rules,

acording to your, incorrect, assumption, I can then take another two guardsmen, and give them one heavy weapon as well, and ignore the fact that I have now taken 4 guard, and given them two heavy weapons.

you are ASSUMING that "may trade ONE weapon, for ONE relic" implies/intend a ratio, and that is incorrect RAW,

raw is one weapon, for one relic,

as soon as you have swapped two weapons, for two relics, you have broken the rules.



C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

is in fact, not your permission to take multiple relics... it says you can take items (plural) from multiple (plural) lists...

so your argument, is that it should rightly say ".....can take ITEM from the melee, ranged weapons, special issue wargear, ect ect" list?

that isnt proper english, that word ITEMS is pluralized because it HAS to be to be applied to MULTIPLE lists.... that is not even close to overriding the very specific RAW of "ONE weapon, for ONE relic"

if you end up, through any means, with having swapped 2 weapons, for two relics, you have broken the above rule.

And yet, by saying you CANT swap one for one twice breaks the RAW on pg 158. Where it says and/or means one OR both as long as you pay for both

It's ambiguous based on RAW, and as Happyjew mentioned a page ago, GW has either decided that it can't clarify, or chosen not to.

People are focusing on the "one weapon" for "one weapon" part, but it, grammatically, is functionally the same as "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" since the phrase "with ONE of the following" follows it. That is how it is in terms of language. Now in terms of RAI, there may be a difference, but again, GW hasn't clarified.

It is widely agreed upon that you can take two melee weapons (such as lightning claws), and as such the language for relics, in the absence of an FAQ opposing it, should be interpreted the same as the language for melee/ranged weapons.

The only difference between "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" for "one weapon" and "one weapon" for "one weapon" is that you can be in terminator armor when taking relics, and therefore you need to be able to replace more than bolt pistols and/or melee weapons for relics, you need to be able to replace any given weapon for any given relic.

Now, here's the thing, if it was widely agreed upon that you could not take more than one melee weapon, then perhaps it would make sense that you couldn't take more than one relic, but the consensus on melee weapons creates an opening on relic weapons.

Welcome to poor rule writing, your teacher today will be Game Workshop.....

I have addressed the and/or for 'pistol and/or melee' in the past because it is a good example of how not to write a rule. By a very logical and rule as written examination, the model exchanging a bolt pistol and melee weapon would only gain one of the listed weapons in return. After all even though, previously in the book, it has explained that and/or can exchange both as long as they pay costs for both, that doesn't over-ride the more specific rule found later telling you 'one of the following.' However this rule as written explanation can not be correct because it presents a choice that doesn't make any sense. There is no benefit for exchanging both, so why waste all this ink explaining how you go about exchanging both if there was never any intention to allow two items to be exchangeable for two items by the and/or clause.

In short: Whom in their right mind exchanges two weapons for one when the option to exchange one for one exists?

Now I will admit I have not consumed and digested the Space Marine codex, I have barely flicked through it. However, from what people have put here in relation to the relic, I can not say the same ambitious nature exists. There is nothing in the relic rule which states and/or nor is there anything which seems to grant permission to take the rule twice. While it is a situation of comparing oranges and lemons, seeing it is a little closer then apples, it still is two completely different wording so one can not be used as precedent for the other. We might be wrong and the intent might be to take multiple relics, but the rule as written does not create the same confusion as the inclusion of and/or before 'one of the following.'

But, if you can only trade for one relic, then you must only be able to trade for one melee weapon, as the relevant wording that controls the number of choices that you can make from each is identical.

Both say: You may trade x for one y. If the one relic interpretation really is correct, the the melee and/or language would serve only to allow players to trade two weapons for one. This is obviously not how the author meant the writing to be interpreted (unless the VV box with the twin lightning claw marine on the front was a taunt rather than a preview).

Rapture wrote:
But, if you can only trade for one relic, then you must only be able to trade for one melee weapon, as the relevant wording that controls the number of choices that you can make from each is identical.

Both say: You may trade x for one y. If the one relic interpretation really is correct, the the melee and/or language would serve only to allow players to trade two weapons for one. This is obviously not how the author meant the writing to be interpreted (unless the VV box with the twin lightning claw marine on the front was a taunt rather than a preview).

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

rigeld2 wrote:

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

Except of course that the conjunctions cannot change the effect of the rule because they are inside of a clause.

The two clauses for both the melee and relic rules are 'can replace x' and 'with y.' What the x and the y are cannot, in the English language, have any impact on the interaction of those two clauses.

If consistency in the Wargear List is important (which it is), then the number of selections that a model can make from the melee, ranged, and relic tables must all be the same. The and/or does not changes this as it is not capable of change it.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

Except of course that the conjunctions cannot change the effect of the rule because they are inside of a clause.

The two clauses for both the melee and relic rules are 'can replace x' and 'with y.' What the x and the y are cannot, in the English language, have any impact on the interaction of those two clauses.

If consistency in the Wargear List is important (which it is), then the number of selections that a model can make from the melee, ranged, and relic tables must all be the same. The and/or does not changes this as it is not capable of change it.

According to page 158, the and/or absolutely does change it.
It's like rules matter or something...