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.

Nurglitch wrote:That's the crux of the problem though, isn't it? If certain people can't read a book written at a sixth-grade level, then can one explain to them in a written medium that their literacy skills are weak?

GOD DAMMIT THE WORLD IS ENDING.

And it is all the fault of the original poster.

Making me agree with Nurglitsch TWICE in one thread is evil in the highest degree.

Wehrkind wrote:Where does it state that Swordbreaker? I haven't read that anywhere.

This is a nifty trick, though I do agree that exploiting it gets rapidy super expensive. The WYSIWYG results are amusing though.

Swiss Army Fist?

And indeed, the neither is there to make it an option to upgrade either. By including Neither, a Rules Lawyer cannot insist, RAW, that your list is illegal because you didn't soup up your Commander.

GAH

(Yes, I realise I'm posting again)

You don't think "MAY" is so the rules lawyer can't insist, RAW, that your list is illegal because you didn't soup up your Commander? As in "you MAY exchange" (p128)?

Viperion

I think its there so people don't try to create loopholes that don't exist, oh wait its already happening.

Here's how it goes

1. You shoot me with one weapon and then say your going to use another weapon
2. I ask how on earth you can do that
3. You explain how
4. I give you a quizical look and ask to see the codex (which i have so I'll read my own)
5. You point out said rule with a cheshire cat grin
6. I call you an idiot and tell you that your wrong
7. You insist that this is a legitament loophole
8. a. I pack away all my minitures and leave
OR b. I B@tchslap you, pack away all my minitures and leave
OR c. My prayers are answered and a giant Carnefex appears behind you and says "ello mate" and eats you whole before going shopping with his mommy.
OR d. All of the above

You see where I'm going with this? Loophole? jog on!
I think you can tell that the majority of people disagree.

EDIT: Sorry, I just reread my post and realised what a stupid addition that was in 8c, why would a Carnefex need to go shopping? ... Duh me!
EDIT: Of course! ("slaps his own forehead"), to pick up two weapons for his Marine friend.

padixon wrote:This is time for an English writing lesson...So, if GW used they're grammar correctly, we should be able to use each item by itself in the sentence and each one make sense....

Hehe, irony.

To the original topic: it's a loophole. You've been given reasons why it doesn't make sense to most of the posters here, so you know that it will cause tempers to flare in real life - as it has here. My rule of thumb: if it's likely to cause an issue, avoid it.

Simple as that.

Ghaz and the side saying that "replace" does not mean "add" have it right.

Pakman had the clearest restatement of the problem phrase:

"you may replace neither provided you pay the stated cost"

The cost of replacing neither is zero, because you're not replacing anything. So the rule allows you to replace neither of your weapons (i.e. keep default gear) for free.

Those who are trying to read this as allowing additional gear are misapplying the negative prefix in the word "neither."

"Neither" means "not-either." So to "replace not-either" is the verbal equivalent of "keep both".

Those who are reading this as allowing additional weapons are wanting "neither" to mean "not-replace"--so "not-replace either" would mean "add without replacing."

But clearly, to "replace neither," which is what the rule says, is not the verbal equivalent of "not-replace both." I think this is actually a case of a logical error called denying the antecedent, but I'd have to diagram it out to be sure.

while I find this "loophole" to be quite slowed I would like to see the diagram. pretty pictures are always fun...

While it is illegal, I'd allow it. And then when (before the game) I ask 'Whats all that?' - obviously seeing a hunched over captain who is overburdened with flexible gear, I will smirk, then kill him first turn.

How many points would that be? 300? 400? POINT IS: It would be a major point sink and not practical in the slightest

Now, there is a point in which I would complain. All of your seargeants are carrying a bolt pist+power weapon, and a bolter. And, that is only because you would get an extra shot (from your bolter), give an extra attack in combat (pistol), and negate armor saves in cc (power weapon)... Even though CSM can do that.

I will start modeling mine as such, just in case it becomes standard practice. But right now, replace is not equal to add.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm

I honestly can't believe that this is still being argued. You must replace a weapon to buy a weapon, you may chose to not replace one or both.

Options, p.128, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, neither, or both.

Space Marine Caption Option, abrev., p.132, Codex: Space Marines wrote:Replace bolt pistol and/or chainsword with:
- a boltgun
- a stormbolter
...

In combination this is parsed in three ways.

1. Replace either the bolt pistol or chainsword with:
- a boltgun
- a stormbolter

Leading to the four possible combinations of equipment:

i. Bolt pistol and boltgun
ii. Bolt pistol and stormbolter
iii. Chainsword and boltgun
iv. Chainsword and stormbolter

2. Replace neither the bolt pistol and/or chainsword with:
- a boltgun
- a stormbolter

Leading to one possible combination of equipment:

i. Bolt pistol and chainsword.

3. Replace both the bolt pistol and the chainsword with:
- a boltgun
- a stormbolter

Leading to three possible combinations of equipment:

i. A boltgun and a stormbolter.
ii. A boltgun and a boltgun.
iii. A stormbolter and a stormbolter.

Wow this thred is still going on! I went to my local gaming shop today and looked at the marine codex it doesnt even say what the original poster said under the comanders entry. its in the begining units section before the army listings. if you look at the comanders listing theres no mistaking that you replace the weapons. i mean for christ sake your guy would look like a janitor with one of those key rings with 500 keys on it but it would be all the weapons you purchased.

Bradmammajamma wrote:Wow this thred is still going on! I went to my local gaming shop today and looked at the marine codex it doesnt even say what the original poster said under the comanders entry. its in the begining units section before the army listings. if you look at the comanders listing theres no mistaking that you replace the weapons. i mean for christ sake your guy would look like a janitor with one of those key rings with 500 keys on it but it would be all the weapons you purchased.

It says what I said it says, on the pages I said that it said it on. Check your facts before calling me a liar.

Viperion

Viperion, I think you get too excited about this. I too believe it is not a loophole and was going to write a reply but Flavius Infernus has already covered my points. Sometimes some POV's simply differ but when a vast majority expresses the view that they see no problem with the phrase, then it shouldn't be too hard to accept that it isn't so slowed as you may have thought.

Here you want the definitive answer.

Read both the Chapter Master and the Company Commander entries. Guess what, the entry states "Replace Bolt Pistol and/or Chainsword with:"

Every entry in the codex states the same type of weapon options, YOU REPLACE.

::sigh:: this is the last time I read a post with the word "slowed" in the title...

let it die the ignoble death it deserves...

The irony here is that they probably worded it this way in order to avoid somebody coming up with a silly rules interpretation that wasn't intended. After all, if they had worded it as......

"Where an option states that you may EXCHANGE one weapon 'and/or' another, you may REPLACE either, or both provided you pay the stated cost."

We all know that somebody, somewhere, would try to say you HAD to exchange the weapon and your ONLY choices were to replace either or both, and there was NO option to NOT replace anything. They tossed the neither in there to make it technically correct for you to just keep what you were given.

I wonder though, did we just find the new codex version of Terminators not wearing Terminator armor?

-Hans

Terminator armor is listed in their profile and described under the 'armor' section of the codex.

May does not equal Must and therefore your probable argument would have been shut down on page one.

Read this bit yesterday in my sick bed.

As the options are presented under the Characters own entry in the Army List, what said entry states issues you with your limitations.

Ergo, what is said over the page about either neither both etc, has no bearing whatsoever on the individual entries.

For example, you may replace Bolt Pistol or CCW for X, Y or Z.

Ergo, if I take X, I must replace either my Bolt Pistol or CCW with it. I could then take Y from the same list, as I could replace the remaining item, but I could not then also take Z, having run out of substitutions.

HOWEVER, there are examples in the lists where NEITHER need be replaced. For example, Digital Weapons. Thats a straight upgrade. Thus, NEITHER my Bolt Pistol or CCW gets replaced.

Now, Viperion. Go out and by another copy of the Codex. Then, pop it through a shredder (manual or automatic, doesn't matter) take the resultant shreds, and place them in a bowl. Add water and mash together. Then eat, and hope to god that this works where reading comprehension has failed to allow you to digest the contents of said Codex accurately.

Well unless it says specifically you can replace niether with ..... whatever. then you cannot do that. It says and/or. I do not remember reading neither. Also, its strange what people have started doing since the chaos dex came out where they will shoot you with two handed weapons then charge you and say that they now have a pistol and hand to hand weapon. There is no rule saying you cannot do that. Thier dex says they are equiped with all of that. I understand most people think of the game rule mechanix in terms of "If it doesn't say you can then you can't" Others think If it doesn't say you can't then you can" So it a matter of how people think. I suppose. I don't think it is correct personally that they do that but one would have to ask GW for the real answer.

Just .... let .... iittt ...... die .... pleease.

smart_alex wrote:Well unless it says specifically you can replace niether with ..... whatever. then you cannot do that. It says and/or. I do not remember reading neither. Also, its strange what people have started doing since the chaos dex came out where they will shoot you with two handed weapons then charge you and say that they now have a pistol and hand to hand weapon. There is no rule saying you cannot do that. Thier dex says they are equiped with all of that. I understand most people think of the game rule mechanix in terms of "If it doesn't say you can then you can't" Others think If it doesn't say you can't then you can" So it a matter of how people think. I suppose. I don't think it is correct personally that they do that but one would have to ask GW for the real answer.

On the subject of 'shoot with one, hit with another' I also agree it is perfectly allowable.

I think some of the confusion on this comes from Fantasy players were, once you have picked what you are fighting with, you are stuck with it until the combat is won, the one exception being Bretonnians who always use the Lance in the first round, then switch to Handweapon.

Nowhere, to my knowledge in the 40k rules are you prevented from, purely for example, firing a Boltpistol on the way in to combat, and then fighting with two Lightning Claws in the ensuing hth round. Absolutely nowhere. And interestingly, nor can you 'swtich off' a Powerfist type thing to avoid going last at the expense of it's bonuses, if you have no alternate weapons.

So, example time....I charged your Space Marine Commander, who is armed with a Powersword and Powerfist. You get no bonus attacks, and must attack with the Powerfist. BUT, if he had Powersword, Powerfist, Bolt Pistol (impossible now I know!) THEN you have the option of not using the Powerfist.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, example time....I charged your Space Marine Commander, who is armed with a Powersword and Powerfist. You get no bonus attacks, and must attack with the Powerfist..

I would love to know how you came about this example. If a model is armed with multiple types of weapons, it may choose which one to use. Your Commander may choose to use his I5 PW or his I1 PF. You are correct he would not get the +1 attack for 2 CCW, but he has the choice.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Now, Viperion. Go out and by another copy of the Codex. Then, pop it through a shredder (manual or automatic, doesn't matter) take the resultant shreds, and place them in a bowl. Add water and mash together. Then eat, and hope to god that this works where reading comprehension has failed to allow you to digest the contents of said Codex accurately.

Another gem full of win!