Is it allowable?
Codex seems to indicate so, but I haven't ever seen it and Army Builder won't let me (yes I know dumb reason I just want to know before I glue this guy together)

It says "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following", so it's debatable, similar to the Chapter Relic argument in the new SM Codex. Personally, I'd say no, you're not allowed as the Ranged Weapon section uses different wording from the Melee Weapon bit, implying that this slightly ambigious wording was deliberate.

The answer is no.
The option says "One Chaos Space Marine may replace his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol". A "Chaos Space Marine" is not an "Aspiring Champion". The Aspiring Champion, however, may take items from the Ranged Weapon wargear list, giving him the opportunity to exchange ONE weapon with a Plasma Pistol. Thus, you can have 2 Plasma Pistols in the unit, but not on the same guy.

If you want 2 Plasma Pistols, you'll have to take a unit of Chosen. The Chosen Champion has the same options as the Aspiring Champion, but the Options wording for the rest of the unit says "Up to four MODELS may choose one of the following". One model could in this case be the Chosen Champion.

What's the debate here?

Aspirng Champions are allowed to take "items" from Melee and/or Ranged weapons. It does not say may replace 1 item or may replace an item from the list. It says "items", which means more than one. If I could take a power weapon (replacing the close combat weapon that only the camption has included in profile) and a plasma pistol (replacing the bolt pistol), then why can I not replace my close combat weapon with a plasma pistol and my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol or the boltgun. Sure, its 30 points, but allows you to shoot 2 pistols (gunslinger rule) and still charge.

spaztacus wrote:
What's the debate here?

Aspirng Champions are allowed to take "items" from Melee and/or Ranged weapons. It does not say may replace 1 item or may replace an item from the list. It says "items", which means more than one. If I could take a power weapon (replacing the close combat weapon that only the camption has included in profile) and a plasma pistol (replacing the bolt pistol), then why can I not replace my close combat weapon with a plasma pistol and my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol or the boltgun. Sure, its 30 points, but allows you to shoot 2 pistols (gunslinger rule) and still charge.

Right, you can take one item from Ranged, and one or two "items" from Melee. If it had said they are allowed to take items from Ranged weapons (with no mention of other lists) it might be different story.

spaztacus wrote:
What's the debate here?

Aspirng Champions are allowed to take "items" from Melee and/or Ranged weapons. It does not say may replace 1 item or may replace an item from the list. It says "items", which means more than one. If I could take a power weapon (replacing the close combat weapon that only the camption has included in profile) and a plasma pistol (replacing the bolt pistol), then why can I not replace my close combat weapon with a plasma pistol and my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol or the boltgun. Sure, its 30 points, but allows you to shoot 2 pistols (gunslinger rule) and still charge.

CSM dex, p. 91:

Ranged Weapons
A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

 Valkyrie wrote:
It says "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following", so it's debatable,

No it isn't. There is no logical debate possible.

It says one. One is the integer between zero and two.

Also from this codex:
"One Chaos Space marine may replace his...boltgun with a : flamer 5 pts, meltagun 10 pts, plasma gun 15 pts."

If you really think you can take more than one of something when it says one, why aren't you championing Chaos Space Marine troop squads where everyone has a plasma gun?

Let me ask you a few questions. If the intention was to limit the number of items taken to two, how would they have written that? If the intention was to not limit it at all, how would they have written that?

This exact same wording shows up in the Dark Angels book. It is used in the melee weapon section. If the interpretation that it is a limit then no Dark Angel model that uses this table may have a pair of lighting claws and while that in itself proves nothing it does sour the argument a bit as dual lighting claws is a 40k staple. The issue that different text is used for different lists can be explained. In the dark angels book not all the characters eligible to use these lists are equipped with bolt pistols and chainswords (the weapons specified in the other lists) and re-using that language would prevent models like chaplains from from wielding anything other then its default melee weapon.

This is a RAI debate, and in the case of the DA book I believe the intent is clear. It stands to reason that this intent would be the same when the identical text is used in other books.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Let me ask you a few questions. If the intention was to limit the number of items taken to two, how would they have written that? If the intention was to not limit it at all, how would they have written that?

"A model may replace any weapon with one of the following" instead of "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following".

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Let me ask you a few questions. If the intention was to limit the number of items taken to two, how would they have written that? If the intention was to not limit it at all, how would they have written that?

"A model may replace any weapon with one of the following" instead of "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following".

How does that not limit me to 'one of the the following'? Your version allows me to replace one weapon or all my weapons, but I still only get 'one of the following' in place of what was lost.

It's the first part of that sentence which is limiting you to one relic, not the second.

You can replace one weapon with one relic. If you can replace any weapon with one relic, you could replace as many weapons you have with one relic each.

OK, lets creak down the structure of this sentence.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

We have a complete subject for our sentence and a complete predicate.

The Sentence wrote:A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The indefinite (a) simple subject (model) cab refer to 'any model' and does not refer to any model in particular.

The predicate is modal (can) and the action (replace) is not required.

Our action (replace) require an object (one weapon). In this case one weapon is what is being replaced.

Our sentence also has a prepositional phrase (with) which requires a second object (one of the following). In this case one of the following will be substituted for one weapon.

The first object (one weapon) contains an adjective (one). This adjective is a determiner in the form of a quantifier and sets a numerical value to the noun. A single weapon in this case.

The second object (one of the following) also contains an adjective (one) and that modifies the prepositional phrase (of the following) which is a definite noun and refers only to 'the following'.
-----------------------------------------

The object being replaced (one weapon) could be any noun and the function of the sentence would not change. The sentence remains "A model can replace X with Y."

X is what is lost, Y is what is gained.

Replacing the adjective "one" with "any" does not change the function of the sentence, it only changes how the 1st object is being modified. In this case 'one' set a quantity limiting the number of weapons being replaced to one. The use of 'any' would be as a determiner and would mean one of something or a number of things. i.e One object = Any object.

To indicate the maximum number of things a model can replace we would need to use a modifier that indicate a limit in addition to a quantity. Such as "A model can replace only one weapon with one of the the following". or "A model can replace up to one weapon with one of the following."

It's baffling to anyone who speaks English that you think "one" and "any" are synonymous.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It's baffling to anyone who speaks English that you think "one" and "any" are synonymous.

The Oxford English dictionary would not be baffled.

ANY wrote:
1 [usually with negative or in questions] used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many: [as determiner]:

2 whichever of a specified class might be chosen: [as determiner]:

Its the second definition that applies to our sentence. and whichever is used to emphasize a lack of restriction in selecting one of a definite set of alternatives

So 'any weapon' means one selected with out restriction of the specified class weapon.

You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

In this use they are synonymous because 'any weapon' literally 'means any one weapon'. The one may be dropped because in this use any may only refer to a selection of one. Because we are not eliminating any sub-classes of the the weapon class 'one weapon' also literally means any 'one weapon' and the any may be dropped because it is superfluous in this use.

'One' in this use determines the quantity of what is being replaced. Lets look at what happens if we change the number.

A model can replace two weapons with one of the following.

This does not mean the model may replace a single weapon twice, it means a model can loose two weapons and gain one of something else.

The rules of the English language are clear. This sentence is insufficient impose the kind of restrictions you think it does.

I'd say no, however you can have an AC with a Bolt Pistol and a Plasma Pistol.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

In this use they are synonymous because 'any weapon' literally 'means any one weapon'. The one may be dropped because in this use any may only refer to a selection of one. Because we are not eliminating any sub-classes of the the weapon class 'one weapon' also literally means any 'one weapon' and the any may be dropped because it is superfluous in this use.

'One' in this use determines the quantity of what is being replaced. Lets look at what happens if we change the number.

I was going off your colourful reversion breakdown, in which 1 means 1 in both cases.

Chaos Artifacts are one for one. Once you have replaced 1 weapon for one of the following you have satisfied the permission.

Chaos Ranged weapons are the same; you are only given permission to exchange 1 weapon for one on the list.

Chaos Melee weapons allow for both weapons to be exchanged.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

In this use they are synonymous because 'any weapon' literally 'means any one weapon'. The one may be dropped because in this use any may only refer to a selection of one. Because we are not eliminating any sub-classes of the the weapon class 'one weapon' also literally means any 'one weapon' and the any may be dropped because it is superfluous in this use.

'One' in this use determines the quantity of what is being replaced. Lets look at what happens if we change the number.

I was going off your colourful reversion breakdown, in which 1 means 1 in both cases.

Chaos Artifacts are one for one. Once you have replaced 1 weapon for one of the following you have satisfied the permission.

Chaos Ranged weapons are the same; you are only given permission to exchange 1 weapon for one on the list.

Chaos Melee weapons allow for both weapons to be exchanged.

The permission is for you to take items from the list, not a single item. The permission comes from the the option in the for the unit. The war gear section does not grant any permissions, it only describes how to take items from the list.

In fact that brings up an excellent point. If they wanted to limit you to a single item from the list they most likely would have done it when they allowed you to take items from the list as they did with a Chaos Lord and the Marks of Chaos. Instead they gave you permission to take multiple items from the list.

Hate to veer off a little, but in regards to the chosen troops, it says you may take up to four of the following weapons...

Does it mean I could have 4 power glove guys or I have to take a power glove, a double lightning claw, etc. If I take any at all?

Take 4 of the same weapon, no problem there.

Thanks!

I hate to put fuel on the fire, but I am of the opinion that you MAY have two plasma pistols if you wish. Based on how the codex is written, or perhaps how it is not written. I don't know, but here is my take.

In the unit profile (p. 95) it says "The AC may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons sections of the wargear list."
Right there it doesn't even say what weapons the AC has to begin with, other than 1 CCW. For us with some experience it is natural to assume he starts out with a bolt pistol and CCW because that's how it was written in the 5th ededition codex, but it doesn't really say in this edition. Reading the unit profile it actually looks like he has 3 weapons in total; a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW. So that makes 3 "slots" if you read the codex as it is. This is not relevant to the actual question, I suppose, but it does bring more ambiguity to the codex. However you want to interpret that, it doesn't say which weapons may be replaced with which.

On p. 91 it does indeed say "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"
But to me this is just to say you can't "replace ONE weapon with TWO of the following:" or something like that. One weapon is removed, one weapon is put in its place. So, you can replace one bolt pistol with one plasma pistol, AND replace one CCW with one plasma pistol. That is how I read it.

The wording is similar on the Melle Weapons list. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:"
If the rule indeed means that you can only have ONE OF EACH weapon listed, then you wouldn't be able to have a pair of lightning claws. But you can, so to me, that's not what the authors mean by "one of the following".
In the Melee Weapon list it says which weapons you may replace (CCW and/or bolt pistol), but for Ranged Weapons it only says "one weapon" which to me means you may choose which that "one" weapon is.

To compare, on the same page (91) regarding the Special Issue Wargear it says "A model can take UP TO ONE OF EACH of the following:"
Here it is clear that you can only take one of a certain item. If you could only take one of each Ranged/Melee weapon i think they would have stated it in the same way.

I admit that I might be biased, being a CSM player myself, but I also agree with many people that this codex has a couple of "holes" in it when it comes to rules like this. Whether intentional or not it does seem more liberal as to how many of each weapon you can have and which weapon you want to replace.

So, the way I see it you can mix it up in a bunch of ways. You may take 2 plasma pistols, 2 chainaxes, 2 lightning claws, 1 combi-plasma and 1 plasma pistol, or whatever.

 ChaoticBob wrote:

On p. 91 it does indeed say "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"

The wording is similar on the Melle Weapons list. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:"

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

So I think my go to plan is just bring him along, he has a sword sheathed on his side so if my Opponent gets butthurt over the dual plasma he will be a plasma with powersword.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 ChaoticBob wrote:

On p. 91 it does indeed say "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"

The wording is similar on the Melle Weapons list. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:"

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

Then that would imply that you may not carry a pair of lightning claws anymore. Because 40k doesn't tell me that I can, any more than the other weapons. They fall under the same rule, being in the same list., so if you can still take a pair of lightning claws (which you can), the same rule should apply for all the weapons, at least Melee ones.

I am fairly certain that you may wield two bolt pistols, but 40k doesn't tell you that specifically anywhere. (Gunslinger rule and all that).

I am an advocate for The Rule of Cool, so if your opponent is careless enough to put two plasma pistols on the same guy (because it's not a very good idea in the first place), why not just let him? It's cool! Wasting a perfectly good CCW to instead have two weapons that are likely to explode in your face before you get within range is a pretty unorthodox tactic, but I say kudos to those who try it!

 ChaoticBob wrote:

Then that would imply that you may not carry a pair of lightning claws anymore.

Incorrect.

"A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:" has several permutations including replacing each with a separate thing.

But that's exactly what was pointed out in the post you quoted, so I guess you don't actually care.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

They are identical in structure.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The subject is the same, the action is the same, the modal nature is the same and the secondary object (what is gained) is the same. The only difference is the primary object. "one weapon" is just a description of what is lost. The permission to replace more then one item comes from the option under the units description.

 DJGietzen wrote:

They are identical in structure.

his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon

one weapon

Are you serious? In case you are, click on that. In no interpretation are those identical.

One says one weapon, or another weapon, or both weapons, the other says exactly and only one.

Considering a model can only fire one weapon it doesn't even matter, their is no point in taking two

 Kaptain Skullstompa wrote:
Considering a model can only fire one weapon it doesn't even matter, their is no point in taking two

You might want to check the gunslinger special rule, in the weapon types part (P 52)

 Kaptain Skullstompa wrote:
Considering a model can only fire one weapon it doesn't even matter, their is no point in taking two

Page 52, BRB, Gunslinger: A model with two pistols may fire both in the shooting phase.

You should find and read the Gunslinger rules.
Edit: Missed the second page. :-x

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

They are identical in structure.

his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon

one weapon

Are you serious? In case you are, click on that. In no interpretation are those identical.

One says one weapon, or another weapon, or both weapons, the other says exactly and only one.

Yes, I am serious. Both sentences use this sentence structure.

[SUBJECT][MODAL VERB][ACTION VERB][DIRECT OBJECT][PREPOSITION][PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT]

 Kaptain Skullstompa wrote:
Considering a model can only fire one weapon it doesn't even matter, their is no point in taking two

You might want to read the Gunslinger special rule.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Both sentences use this sentence structure.

What's that got to do with anything?

Words mean things. The words you think those sentences say do not exist. Their meanings are not identical.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Both sentences use this sentence structure.

What's that got to do with anything?

Only everything we have been talking about.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Words mean things. The words you think those sentences say do not exist. Their meanings are not identical.

No, they are not identical in meaning but they are identical in structure. The difference is present only in the direct object (the one being replaced). This part of the sentence can only describe what is lost as part of the 'replace' action. The structure of the sentence does not limit the loss of the direct object to a single iteration and that is why you can replace both a bolt pistol and a melee weapon for two things.
"one weapon" is a simple noun with a numeral determiner. It has a single meaning.

more then zero and less then 2 weapons.

"his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" is a complex noun phrase that can mean one of three things.

the model's bolt pistol

the model's melee weapon

the model's bolt pistol and melee weapon

If you choose the 'and' option you will loose two things and only gain one.

'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'. If either of those were part of the sentence you would be correct. They are not.

Actually the "and / or" results in the sentence being expanded out into:

You may replace the bolt pistol OR chainsword OR bolt pistol [for one weapon] AND chainsword [for one weapon]

Each of these expansions comes with permission to exchange to one weapon

You are ignoring the and / or, and the implication it has on the sentence.

One weapon for one weapon twice has no such allowance, so nom they are not the same. You have replaced 2 weapons for 2 weapons, something explicitly not allowed. Or are you claiming guard can take 4 HWT per infantry / vet squad? How about units and dedicated transports , you can now take 10 razorbacks not 1?

No, that isnt how the rules work. Your parsing is incorrect.

 Kaptain Skullstompa wrote:
Considering a model can only fire one weapon it doesn't even matter, their is no point in taking two

6th ed. Gunslinger rule makes this possible. For sergeants/champions/HQs.

No, for anyone. Any model with 2 pistols - such as seraphim.

 DJGietzen wrote:

'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.

That's the point! "One weapon" DOES mean "one weapon". I.e you switch one weapon for one plasma pistol, then you switch the other one weapon for one plasma pistol. Thusly, one weapon replaces one weapon. 1-1+1=1

What you are arguing is that "one" has another meaning than simply "one".

 ChaoticBob wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.

That's the point! "One weapon" DOES mean "one weapon". I.e you switch one weapon for one plasma pistol, then you switch the other one weapon for one plasma pistol. Thusly, one weapon replaces one weapon. 1-1+1=1

What you are arguing is that "one" has another meaning than simply "one".

Except your 'definition' of one weapon is actually two weapons. 2-2+2=2.

 Ghaz wrote:

 ChaoticBob wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.

That's the point! "One weapon" DOES mean "one weapon". I.e you switch one weapon for one plasma pistol, then you switch the other one weapon for one plasma pistol. Thusly, one weapon replaces one weapon. 1-1+1=1

What you are arguing is that "one" has another meaning than simply "one".

Except your 'definition' of one weapon is actually two weapons. 2-2+2=2.

No it isn't.

This is how I read it.

The model has 2 weapons. One for each hand, basically. Call them Weapon A and Weapon B.

The model may replace weapon A with one of the following:
- Chainaxe
- Lightning Claw
- Power Weapon
- Power fist
- Combi-bolter
- Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma
- Plasma pistol

The model may replace weapon B with one of the following:
- Chainaxe
- Lightning Claw
- Power Weapon
- Power fist
- Combi-bolter
- Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma
- Plasma pistol

I have still only replaced ONE weapon with ONE of the following.

Yes it is. 1-1+1(*2)=2. You have replaced TWO weapons, not one.

DJgietzen: And/or is very different from one weapon.

And/Or allows for either or both, each for the one weapon.

And while the permission to select "Items" from the list exists, yes there are several "Items" in the list. that allowance does not change the restriction in the list itself.

Chaotic - no, you have replaced 2 weapons for 2 weapons

Using your argument I can replace 8 guardssmen with 4 autocannon team, as while I am told to do 2 for 1, 2 for 1 4 times is ok, yes?

No, it isnt ok there, and it isnt ok here

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.

You need to read ALL the words.

One weapon does not mean ONLY one weapon or UP TO one weapon. It means a number of weapons less then 2 and greater then 0. It has no greater meaning. Its just a cardinal number. The sentence it is in does not prohibit any additional replacements of items from that set

.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually the "and / or" results in the sentence being expanded out into:

You may replace the bolt pistol OR chainsword OR bolt pistol [for one weapon] AND chainsword [for one weapon]

Each of these expansions comes with permission to exchange to one weapon

You are ignoring the and / or, and the implication it has on the sentence.

One weapon for one weapon twice has no such allowance, so nom they are not the same. You have replaced 2 weapons for 2 weapons, something explicitly not allowed. Or are you claiming guard can take 4 HWT per infantry / vet squad? How about units and dedicated transports , you can now take 10 razorbacks not 1?

No, that isnt how the rules work. Your parsing is incorrect.

No, my parsing is fine, you've missed some key elements and made some erroneous assumptions.

And/Or is an 'ugly' conjunction and it does not mean what you think it means. It means the sentence can be written using both the "or" conjunction or the "and" conjunction and be correct. Lets looks at what that would look like.

A model can replace his bolt pistol or melee weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and melee weapon with one of the following.

The use of 'and' is joining the two individual phrases "bolt pistol" and "melee weapon". What you think its doing is joining two independent clauses "A model can replace his bolt pistol with one of the fallowing." and "A model can replace his melee weapon with one of the following." Trouble is, you need to precede the conjunction with a comma if it connects two independent clauses, and both clauses need to be present (even if they are so similar).

You can see what I mean if we move the 'and' conjunction from the direct object to the prepositional object.

Dave can replace his car with a bus pass and a bicycle.

You can see this does not mean Dave can replace his car with a bus pass then replace it again for a bicycle. The bus pass and the bicycle become the same object for the single replace action.

The allowance to repeat the replacement does not come from the sentences we have been discussing. The allowance comes from the unit option to take items from the lists. The use of items allows us multiple goes at the list. The lack of a determiner gives infinite goes at the list. I don't have my guard book with me so I wont try and parse the HWT example but lets look at the dedicated transports used in codex Space Marines.

The unit may select a Drop Pod, Rhino or Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.

This option does not allow for multiple permutations. You can tell because it says "may select a". Now if the option said the unit may take items from the Dedicated Transport list and that list said "The unit may select one of the following as a dedicated transport." You would be able to have 10 razorbacks. To avoid the unit from having more then one transport in this example this the permission to access the list would not have been for "items" but for "a single item" or "one item" such as it is for heavy weapon choices in a tactical squad (there are many other times this is done). If the intent was to allow a unit one transport of each type, then the option would say "items" but the list would limit the selection by saying "The unit may select up to one of each of the following as a dedicated transport." The combined use of "up to" and "each" limits the unit to a single copy of the different transports while the use of "items" allows for more then one transport." Just like its done with vehicle options.
This same permutation restriction can be achieved using just "up to" in the sentences we have been discussing but GW has not done that.

Unit options that do not use a cosponsoring list are all single iteration options unless the cost of that option contains an adverbial like "/model" (per model) or "each". These little nuances change the meaning of the option to include multiple permutations.

Wrong. One weapon means just that, one. To read it the way you want it would have to say 'a weapon'. It does not.

 Ghaz wrote:
Wrong. One weapon means just that, one. To read it the way you want it would have to say 'a weapon'. It does not.

'one weapon' and 'a weapon' have the same grammatical meaning.

"A" is a determiner used to refer to something for the 1st time. Something is singular, meaning one.

"a thing" = "one thing" grammatically.

No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk

 Ghaz wrote:
No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk

Yes, they do, for the reason I have just explained. See the definition of the determiner A

Try using "A" as a determiner for more then one one object. "You can have a pieces of candy." Is grammatically incorrect.


You can have a piece of candy. = You can have one piece of candy.

You can have a piece of candy.=/= You can have several pieces of candy.

Ok the first one is the limiting factor of amount of swaps the second one is the limiting factor of what you get for the swap. Just as and/or is the limiting factor for the amount of swaps, being one, the other or both (2) for one item for either or one item per item swaped.

this is demontrated repeatedly throughout 40k with fore mentioned limiting facors that are traded for later mentioned limiting factors.

If the intent was for you to be able to swap more than one (fore mentioned limiting factor) then it would say any as a fore mentuoned limited factor.

 Bausk wrote:
Ok the first one is the limiting factor of amount of swaps the second one is the limiting factor of what you get for the swap. Just as and/or is the limiting factor for the amount of swaps, being one, the other or both (2) for one item for either or one item per item swaped.

this is demontrated repeatedly throughout 40k with fore mentioned limiting facors that are traded for later mentioned limiting factors.

If the intent was for you to be able to swap more than one (fore mentioned limiting factor) then it would say any as a fore mentioned limited factor.

Explain the rules of the English language that support what you have said. Address the explanations I have put forth that contradict almost everything you have said but do not contradict the books.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk

Yes, they do, for the reason I have just explained. See the definition of the determiner A

Try using "A" as a determiner for more then one one object. "You can have a pieces of candy." Is grammatically incorrect.


You can have a piece of candy. = You can have one piece of candy.

You can have a piece of candy.=/= You can have several pieces of candy.

So now you're contradicting yourself. First of all you say that it allows you to take multiple plasma pistols, not just one and now you're saying just the opposite.

 Ghaz wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk

Yes, they do, for the reason I have just explained. See the definition of the determiner A

Try using "A" as a determiner for more then one one object. "You can have a pieces of candy." Is grammatically incorrect.


You can have a piece of candy. = You can have one piece of candy.

You can have a piece of candy.=/= You can have several pieces of candy.

So now you're contradicting yourself. First of all you say that it allows you to take multiple plasma pistols, not just one and now you're saying just the opposite.

No, I'm saying a model can take multiple plasma pistols, not because the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." allows it but because the sentence "The Aspiring Champions may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists." gives permission for more then one item and the previous sentence is insufficient to limit the model to a single item.

I explained it in game terms which is more relevant than the failings of English as a language. Anf as for "The Aspiring Champion may take items" is not a qualifier when the game context is he may take as many as possible and as few as none from the available lists and not that he may by pass the lists restrictions. As each list in the wargear section has it's own limitations and rules for use the Army list entry, again give the gane context, has no authority over those limitations.

You are wrong, The sentence structure of the list provides no limitation. It only describes what will be lost and what will be gained. Can you explain why, using more then your opinion, how the list is a restriction?

Lets talk about game terms.

This option, "May take a single Mark of Chaos from the wargear list." specifically states that you are limited to a single item from the list. That section has says "A model can take one of the following."

While this option, "May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Chaos Rewards (except daemonic steeds) and/ or Chaos Artefacts sections of the wargear list.", states you can take zero or more items from one or more sections. Those sections say "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following", "A model can take up to one of each of the following", and "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" respectively.

Why are these two separate options? If "one" was sufficient to mean "only one" would these not all be given as a single option that reads "May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Chaos Rewards (except daemonic steeds), Chaos Artefacts and/ or Marks of Chaos sections of the wargear list."

If the intentions are to limit you to a single chaos artifact or ranged weapon replacement why are those options not given individually using the "single item" terms?

If you think "and/or" allows an option to be taken more then once, find a single use of "and/or" that is not in a section of the war gear list (as those will all have separate permission statements) and does not have an adverbial as part of the cost. I'm willing to be you will be hard pressed to find one. The adverbial is what tells us the sentence allows for multiple permutations not the "and/or" conjunction.

Edit: I've just heard a rumor I cannot confirm. The rumor is that the force builder portion of the space marine ipad codex allows a single model to replace two weapons with two different relics. If some one with and ipad and a digidex could ensure they have the most up to date version and verify or debunk this rumor I would appreciate it. I'd especially like to know if a model can have both the Burning Blade and the Teeth of Terra.

While the force builder app thingy is not as good a source for clarification as an FAQ, it is significantly better then some random guys on the internet Considering this issue has been around for a year now I don't think GW feels it needs clarification (and to that I say they are WRONG) so its not likely to be in an FAQ.

The ibooks version 2.1 (released October 04 2013) has the following description of Chapter Relics:

"Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following: ..."

The Force Requistion (army builder) in the ibook allows for Chapter Masters, Captains, Terminator Captains, Librarians, Chaplains and Masters of the Forge to purchase The Teeth of Terra and The Burning Blade on a single model. To clarify, any single of the forementioned HQ choices -are- able to take both the Teeth of Terra and the Burning Blade.
Sorry for the long-windedness.

DJ - so when you replace 2 items, and I look at the explicit allowance to replace 1, you arent cheating because....

One means One. You have replaced 2. You are explicitly arguing that I can have 4 HWT per Infantry Squad - yes or no? You have been asked this a few times now, and failed to confirm you are arguing that.

And/or was brought up as a point of contention in the relic thread also, I believe someone mentioned an annotation that explained it listed in the codex. As I don't play space marines I can't reference it for you. However the phrasing and terminology is nearly identical in all cases to the chaos marine codex which I. can reference for you when I get home.

I will also rattle of a list of citations explaining the game term use of a/one compared to any/one seeing as you seem incapable of separating the failings of English with multiple meanings from 40ks use of phrasing for game terms.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - so when you replace 2 items, and I look at the explicit allowance to replace 1, you arent cheating because....

I replace them one at a time. A permison granted by the unit option to take items from the wargear section. Each time I replace one weapon with one of something else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

One means One. You have replaced 2. You are explicitly arguing that I can have 4 HWT per Infantry Squad - yes or no? You have been asked this a few times now, and failed to confirm you are arguing that.

I have replaced one, then I have replaced another one. I could theoretically waste points continuing to replace the same weapon over and over and over again, but that would be silly. The permission to continue to replace additional weapons after the 1st is in the unit option, not the wargear section.

Did'nt mean to ignore the question, I just dusted off my IG codex. You are allowed one heavy weapons team per infantry squad. You only have permission to replace 2 guardsmen with one HWT.

This is not the same situation as the 'one weapon' statement however. If the option read "The unit may take formations from the infantry section of the Imperial Tactics list." And some where else in the book was a section called "Imperial Tactics" and it had a section called "Infantry" and that section had the fallowing statement "A unit can replace two guardsmen with one of the following" and then presented this list

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Mortar ...Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with an Autocannon or Heavy Bolter ...2Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Missile Launcher ...3Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Lascannon ...4Xpts

Written like this you could have more then one HWT per infantry squad.

To recreate the original option in the new style the option should have read "The unit may take a single formation from the infantry section of the Imperial Tactics list." And some where else in the book was a section called "Imperial Tactics" and it had a section called "Infantry" and that section had the fallowing statement "A unit can replace two guardsmen with one of the following" and then presented this list

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Mortar ...Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with an Autocannon or Heavy Bolter ...2Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Missile Launcher ...3Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Lascannon ...4Xpts

Written like this you could have only one HWT per infantry squad.

So you have replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, despite being explicitly only allowed to replace 1 weapon with 1 item.

Gneeral permission: take items
Specific restriction: one weapon for one item

Cite permission to use "one for one" twice, and not end up with "two for two", breaking the allowance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you have replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, despite being explicitly only allowed to replace 1 weapon with 1 item.

Gneeral permission: take items
Specific restriction: one weapon for one item

Cite permission to use "one for one" twice, and not end up with "two for two", breaking the allowance.

"one weapon" is NOT a specific restriction. I've already gone over WHY its not twice in this thread. Find my posts and explain, using the rules of the english language, why I am wrong. With out that your argument is worthless.

Hwt: replace two (fore limiting factor) guardsmen with a hwt armed with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

Relics and ranged weapons:
Replace one (fore limiting factor) weapon with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

veterans page 98 ig codex:
Any (fore limiting factor) veteran may replace his lasgun with a (later limiting factor) shotgun.

Chaos codex page 95 chaos space marines

one (fore limiting factor) model in the unit may purchase one (later limiting factor) of the following chaos icons.

Same page chaos cultists
Any (fore limiting factor) may exchange his autopistol for an (later limiting factor) autogun




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can go on if you like.

DJ - yet it is. It is a specific limit on how many items you can have

If you replace 2 items, have you replaced 1? Yes or no.

This arugment isnt worthless, your explanation is just flat out wrong.

If we were to use DJs variation of what one for one means then every model in a chaos marine unit could have an icon. Is this true DJ, do we really have the ability to buy an icon of vengeance and an icon of wrath so the little chaos marines with the mark of khorne can be almost berzerkers?

While that sounds great to me I'm sure it's not possible.

Actually I like DJ's interpretation.

It means I can have a Chaos Lord with all 4 marks.
First I purchase 1 Mark of Khorne.
Then I purchase 1 Mark of Slaanesh
Next I purchase 1 Mark of Nurgle,
Finally I purchase 1 Mark of Tzeentch.

Each time I'm only taking one Mark, so it is all legal.

Nah, I think purchasing 10 Razorbacks for one Grey Knight squad in 5th edition would have been much more fun, no need to buy pesky troops choices for them anymore!

Aw, wait. I got it -
1 10-man Termagant unit
5 Tervigons

Plus 2 more Tervigons as HQs.

Hell yeah multimarked lord, the Dons not so special now. Then you could field bezerkers, plague marines and noise marines as troops all off one lord. Take the axe of blind fury, roll up on a palaquin, grab the burning brand and have a 3+ inv.

This is better than the old 3rd-4th ed codex for lord power gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Aw, wait. I got it -
1 10-man Termagant unit
5 Tervigons

Plus 2 more Tervigons as HQs.

damn man, that's harsh. Gon'd and gaunted to death.

 Happyjew wrote:
Aw, wait. I got it -
1 10-man Termagant unit
5 Tervigons

Plus 2 more Tervigons as HQs.

5 squad guardsman blob; replace 2 guardsmen with 1 auto cannon, rinse repeat. now have 20 auto cannons, 5 guardsmen, 5 sgts, and a commissar to grant them all stubborn.

GK termie squad rinse repeat the 1 in 5; all termies have psycannons.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
5 squad guardsman blob; replace 2 guardsmen with 1 auto cannon, rinse repeat. now have 20 auto cannons, 5 guardsmen, 5 sgts, and a commissar to grant them all stubborn.s.

And they all have to shoot at the same target.

A wise man once said "There is no such thing as Over-kill. Only Enough-kill."

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

They are identical in structure.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The subject is the same, the action is the same, the modal nature is the same and the secondary object (what is gained) is the same. The only difference is the primary object. "one weapon" is just a description of what is lost. The permission to replace more then one item comes from the option under the units description.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

Aijec wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

They are identical in structure.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The subject is the same, the action is the same, the modal nature is the same and the secondary object (what is gained) is the same. The only difference is the primary object. "one weapon" is just a description of what is lost. The permission to replace more then one item comes from the option under the units description.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

What would you do if I said "You may select actions from this list." and the first action was "You may replace one apple with one orange."?

Except you arent selecting actions, you are selecting items. You are then told how many items you can select, and under what condition.

-Shrike- wrote:

Aijec wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

They are identical in structure.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The subject is the same, the action is the same, the modal nature is the same and the secondary object (what is gained) is the same. The only difference is the primary object. "one weapon" is just a description of what is lost. The permission to replace more then one item comes from the option under the units description.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

What would you do if I said "You may select actions from this list." and the first action was "You may replace one apple with one orange."?

I'd replace an apple with an orange. If I wanted to. Because that's what you allowed me to do.

Lets lay all this out AGAIN for the people having trouble staying caught up.

1) Permission to do ANYTHING comes from the unit options.

a)The options may only be taken once unless the language of the option tells us it may be taken several time.

b)If an option may be taken multiple times it may or may not be limited to a specific number of permutations by the language of the option.

2)The Wargear Section has statements that describe how a subject performs an action.

a)These statements do not grant permission to perform these actions.

b)These statements to not crreate a specific restriction on the number of times these actions may be performed.

c) Some of these statements, but not all, do restrict exactly how this action can be preformed if it is being performed more then once.

 Bausk wrote:
Hwt: replace two (fore limiting factor) guardsmen with a hwt armed with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

Relics and ranged weapons:
Replace one (fore limiting factor) weapon with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

Veterans page 98 ig codex:
Any (fore limiting factor) veteran may replace his lasgun with a (later limiting factor) shotgun.

Chaos codex page 95 chaos space marines

one (fore limiting factor) model in the unit may purchase one (later limiting factor) of the following chaos icons.

Same page chaos cultists
Any (fore limiting factor) may exchange his autopistol for an (later limiting factor) autogun

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can go on if you like.

One of these things is not like the others. Every example you posted except the one highlighted in red are unit options. I agree with those example 100%. But the one highlighted in red is a statement in the war gear section and not an option.

 Bausk wrote:
If we were to use DJs variation of what one for one means then every model in a chaos marine unit could have an icon. Is this true DJ, do we really have the ability to buy an icon of vengeance and an icon of wrath so the little chaos marines with the mark of khorne can be almost berzerkers?

How has what I've said lead you to come to such a conclusion?

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually I like DJ's interpretation. It means I can have a Chaos Lord with all 4 marks....Each time I'm only taking one Mark, so it is all legal.

Except the unit option only given permission to take a "single mark" form the wargear section, not permission to take "marks" from the war gear section. By taking the same unit option twice with out the language of that option indicating it may have multiple permutations you have cheated.

Aijec wrote:

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

1) It actually is worded the same. The only difference is the direct object.

2) What your describing is a unit option, and no I would not attempt to do that 20 times. However if you gave me 20 tickets and each ticket allowed me to replace one apple with one orange and I already had 20 apples I could easily walk away with 20 oranges instead. In this example the ticket represents the unit option and that option can be repeated. Each time I repeat the option I loose one apple and gain one orange.

3)This question and this debate pops up all the time all over the internet. RAW is not clear at all. The language is misleading to say the least. No matter what the authors intent was there was a better way to say it.

Aijec wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:

Aijec wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

They are identical in structure.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The subject is the same, the action is the same, the modal nature is the same and the secondary object (what is gained) is the same. The only difference is the primary object. "one weapon" is just a description of what is lost. The permission to replace more then one item comes from the option under the units description.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

What would you do if I said "You may select actions from this list." and the first action was "You may replace one apple with one orange."?

I'd replace an apple with an orange. If I wanted to. Because that's what you allowed me to do.

But at the same time you have permission to perform that said action repeatedly, because you have nothing limiting this in the clause granting the permission.

I'm amazed of how several YMDC posters I usually share an opinion with fail to comprehend how much weight grammar and semantics carry when it comes to rules interpretation. Quite frankly, DJGietzen's explanation is bullet proof unless you decide to attribute characteristics to the sentence that don't exist. It's even supported by the iDex. Would people please provide quotes and page numbers for the part of the rules that explicitly tells us to replace English grammar with Games Workshop's own imaginary set of lingual rules? Otherwise, DJGietzen's clarification stands.

Just as a player has to follow the permissive ruleset of 40K, a writer (and reader when it comes to interpretation) has to follow the rules laid out by the linguistics of the language written in. As it stands, you may select several items from the wargear lists in both the specific cases, and each one selected item replaces one current item.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Lets lay all this out AGAIN for the people having trouble staying caught up. [...]

Just wanted to chip out some support, you're doing an excellent job explaining the reasoning behind the process. Linguistics matter.

DJ did you notice the phrasing of relics and ranged weapons is identical to that of chaos icons? Where the phrasing is doesn't matter, only its contextual influence on what you can and cannot do.

I listed two examples of what phrasing they would have used if the intention was for multiple unspecified item swaps; Any for one.

the statment of may select items refers to the fact you may take one for one relic (an item) and one for one ranged weapon (another item, making items collectively). It is not permission to by pass the limitations of the lists available.

I find myself agreeing with DJGietzen here. Not that the result matters all that much, double plasma pistol would be cool but quite bad tactics wise. But word for word, he is correct. The fact that people use obviously incorrect and ludicrous strawmen just to ridicule him does rustle my jimmies a fair bit as well.

 Bausk wrote:


the statment of may select items refers to the fact you may take one for one relic (an item) and one for one ranged weapon (another item, making items collectively). It is not permission to by pass the limitations of the lists available.

False. For this to be true, it would have had to be phrased "[...] may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists as well as an item from the chapter relics list.". As it stands, you have permission to take items from the Chapter Relics lists. Each time you wish to do so, you exchange one weapon for one relic. Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics. Following proper English grammar, it can only be interpreted this way as has been clearly explained by DJGietzen. The rules written by Games Workshop must be interpreted using the proper linguistic rules of the English language.

TompiQ wrote:
Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics.

Where does it say that you can repeat this process? Game rules are permissive, telling you what you are permitted to do. So where do the rules for the question at hand allow you to repeat the process and allow you to replace more than one weapon when the rules clearly only permit you to replace one weapon?

Edited by AgeOfEgos Grammatically both interpretations of the army list is correct, this is a failing of English and not the author. As the listing is a broad statement encompassing all available options the simplest way to write it is as they have, leaving specifics of exactly how many items may be taken from each section available to the wording of each section of the wargear list.

Futher more as GW use specific syntax to denote everything in the game this carries over from section to section and book to book. Specifically we refer to this as game terminology, where the wording of rules is grammatically the same the meaning, permission or denial is the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I'm going to take a guess that DJ has not neen playing 40k long enough to remeber wargear lists actually existed a couple of editions ago. Functionally a wargear list operates as an expanded but universal options list. The reason such wargear lists exist is it saves space and unnecessary duplicated listings in the army list section.

TompiQ wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


the statment of may select items refers to the fact you may take one for one relic (an item) and one for one ranged weapon (another item, making items collectively). It is not permission to by pass the limitations of the lists available.

False. For this to be true, it would have had to be phrased "[...] may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists as well as an item from the chapter relics list.". As it stands, you have permission to take items from the Chapter Relics lists. Each time you wish to do so, you exchange one weapon for one relic. Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics. Following proper English grammar, it can only be interpreted this way as has been clearly explained by DJGietzen. The rules written by Games Workshop must be interpreted using the proper linguistic rules of the English language.

You have permission to change 1 for 1. Now find permission to do the one for one swap again. page and para.

 Ghaz wrote:

TompiQ wrote:
Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics.

Where does it say that you can repeat this process? Game rules are permissive, telling you what you are permitted to do. So where do the rules for the question at hand allow you to repeat the process and allow you to replace more than one weapon when the rules clearly only permit you to replace one weapon?

You have been given permission to select several items from the chapter relics list. Permission is granted in the unit entry. DJGietzen has explained as of why this allows for several selections already.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have permission to change 1 for 1. Now find permission to do the one for one swap again. page and para.

As said, DJGietzen has explained the reasoning as of why this is possible. The digital codex's army builder also allows for several weapons to be replaced by several relics.

The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

rigeld2 wrote:
The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

Edit: Checked my SM codex. The above is incorrect. You may take several items from Chapter Relics, as many as you have weapons to replace. I'm sorry, but regarding the digital army builder... This only makes me take it with a grain of salt, if it indeed only allows one relic.

As the subject of the thread is plasma pistols and not Chapter Relics, my question still stands.

rigeld2 wrote:
The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

Agree to the grain of salt. It needs to be in an FAQ, but until we get one it is the best way to settle arguments that are about intent.

And you are always giver permission to take items from the relics/artifacts section. Not one codex that uses a wargear section has given permission to take a single item. They all give permission to take items.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:


Futher more as GW use specific syntax to denote everything in the game this carries over from section to section and book to book. Specifically we refer to this as game terminology, where the wording of rules is grammatically the same the meaning, permission or denial is the same.

Can you provide us with some examples of the syntax used to allow a model/unit to take items from a war gear section that did not specify the number of items you can take but did specify that number in the wargear section that are not from a 6th edition codex?

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

Agree to the grain of salt. It needs to be in an FAQ, but until we get one it is the best way to settle arguments that are about intent.

And you are always giver permission to take items from the relics/artifacts section. Not one codex that uses a wargear section has given permission to take a single item. They all give permission to take items.

I'd like to stress this point further by providing an example where you only receive permission for one item. Take a standard tactical squad: "[...] one Space Marine may take one item from the Special Weapons list". Note how here, it is "one item" rather than "items". This would have been the case with the relics as well if that was the intent.

I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

 Bausk wrote:
I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

Are you referring to the veterns option and/or the HWT option you refrenced earlier? Neither of those are examples of syntax where the option was to take items from a wargear section(or what ever name they chose to call it) of the codex.

 DJGietzen wrote:
And you are always giver permission to take items from the relics/artifacts section. Not one codex that uses a wargear section has given permission to take a single item. They all give permission to take items.

Items (plural) from multiple groups. There's no permission to select multiple items from a specific list - you have to look at the list for that.
How many items does the relic list allow?

It is ab example of syntax from edition to edition, I did not say it was a direct answer to your question. I did say, if you read the whole responce, that I can provide a direct answer but I will need to find my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes to find the exact refernces for you.

OK, so question.

Eldar have the same restriction on the Remnants of Glory (one weapon with one of the following). However, the Autarch, Fareser, and Spiritseer all say "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list."

Thoughts?

It is phased exactly as such with no additional lists mentioned? Also are there options in the list that don't require a weapon swap similar to some relics and artifacts?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, so question.

Eldar have the same restriction on the Remnants of Glory (one weapon with one of the following). However, the Autarch, Fareser, and Spiritseer all say "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list."

Thoughts?

Uh, so your farseer can take Anaris and the supersniper if he wants?

No big deal.

I gather from Haraldus' reply there is at least one item that doesn't require a weapon swap.

40k is a permissive game, it allows us to do things and anything that it doesn't mention is not allowed. You cannot repeat wargear selections phrased in this structure more than once because it allows you to change ONE weapon for another.

RAW aside, how is taking a 2nd weapon that doesn't provide any beneficial effect to the game support the "spirit" of wargear selections? Care to explain that?

Care to explain why I can't slam multiple heavy weapons into a SM squad?

I'd love to see someone post a list in Army Lists and see what they have to say.




People are getting into semantics and quoting online dictionaries when the answer is to be found under their noses. You can take one. Why? Because it says one.

Let me re-phrase my apple question,

You can take one apple.

You'd grab 50? 100? 1,000,000?
I granted you a permission, now you can repeat it as many times as you want right? Wrong, don't be foolish.

The original poster just wanted a badass model and I love that but people are just playing devils advocate.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

Are you referring to the veterns option and/or the HWT option you refrenced earlier? Neither of those are examples of syntax where the option was to take items from a wargear section(or what ever name they chose to call it) of the codex.

Why is that relevant? The structure of the permission is the same.

I know that but I will humour him and find what he wanted specifically. Provided I can find my old codexes...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
And you are always giver permission to take items from the relics/artifacts section. Not one codex that uses a wargear section has given permission to take a single item. They all give permission to take items.

Items (plural) from multiple groups. There's no permission to select multiple items from a specific list - you have to look at the list for that.
How many items does the relic list allow?

It neither allows or disallows a specified quantity. That's the point.

Bausk wrote:It is ab example of syntax from edition to edition, I did not say it was a direct answer to your question. I did say, if you read the whole responce, that I can provide a direct answer but I will need to find my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes to find the exact refernces for you.

I asked for a specific example of syntax. You responded that you already had provided syntax. I simply stated that what had already been provdid do was not what was asked for.

Happyjew wrote:OK, so question.

Eldar have the same restriction on the Remnants of Glory (one weapon with one of the following). However, the Autarch, Fareser, and Spiritseer all say "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list."

Thoughts?

I don't have an Eldar Codex right now. Is the statment in the rmnants of glory list also "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"?

Aijec wrote:40k is a permissive game, it allows us to do things and anything that it doesn't mention is not allowed. You cannot repeat wargear selections phrased in this structure more than once because it allows you to change ONE weapon for another.

RAW aside, how is taking a 2nd weapon that doesn't provide any beneficial effect to the game support the "spirit" of wargear selections? Care to explain that?

Care to explain why I can't slam multiple heavy weapons into a SM squad?

I'd love to see someone post a list in Army Lists and see what they have to say.




People are getting into semantics and quoting online dictionaries when the answer is to be found under their noses. You can take one. Why? Because it says one.

Let me re-phrase my apple question,

You can take one apple.

You'd grab 50? 100? 1,000,000?
I granted you a permission, now you can repeat it as many times as you want right? Wrong, don't be foolish.

The original poster just wanted a badass model and I love that but people are just playing devils advocate.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

Are you referring to the veterans option and/or the HWT option you refrenced earlier? Neither of those are examples of syntax where the option was to take items from a wargear section(or what ever name they chose to call it) of the codex.

Why is that relevant? The structure of the permission is the same.

The unit option grants permission for "items". That is your permission to take more then one. The statements in the war gear section describe how a model takes an item from that list. It does not allow a model to take an item from that list, if it did then a chaos cultist could have the black mace.

Taking a second plasma pistol as the OP described provides a benefit in the shooting phase. You might want to read the Gunslinger rule.

Are you referring to a tactical squad as a "SM squad"? If so its because the unit option says "one space marine may take one item" and the nature of this sentence does not allow for multiple permutations. The statement in the heavy weapons list also says that a model must replace his boltgun to take a heavy weapon. The tactical marines only have one boltgun. If however the unit option said "may take items" and the marine had two or more boltguns he could have two or more heavy weapons.

You can search that forum for "Burning blade shield eternal" and see plenty of threads with almost no reaction, but that is not the point. I know its confusing and not every one will agree but in my experience most players allow more then one relic. That is not to say you won't find plenty of reasonable players who feel the exact opposite. It needs an FAQ.

You are surprised people are getting into semantics? That's the purpose of this section of the forum. And it does not say you can take one. It says you can replace one with one.

You can take one apple? I'd grab one apple and acknowledge that I have hit the limit. But if I was told I could have apples and that to take an apple I need to replace one dollar with one apple I could give you 10 dollars and take 10 apples. And that is the problem right there. You can replace X with Y is a statement that sets up the equivalency of X to Y, better known as a ratio. The sentence would need to be written like "A model can replace up to one X with Y" for it to have the meaning so many people seem to think it has. Do you disagree that models in the Dark Angel codex that can take items from the melee wargear section can take a pair of lightning claws?

I'm not trying to play devils advocate, I do that some times on this forum but right now I'm trying to point out a common mistake.


The structure of the permission is not the same. Examples like the ones Bausk provided describe only two syntax structures. The 1st being when an option is clearly not repeatable (most options fall under this category) and when an option is clearly repeatable and the option describes how many times that option may be repeated. What I've asked for is a third syntax where the option can clearly be repeated but the number if times is not specified in the option.

Bausk wrote:I know that but I will humour him and find what he wanted specifically. Provided I can find my old codexes...

Thank you for looking.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Items (plural) from multiple groups. There's no permission to select multiple items from a specific list - you have to look at the list for that.
How many items does the relic list allow?

It neither allows or disallows a specified quantity. That's the point.

It really does. Your refusal to accept that doesn't mean it doesn't.

The unit option grants permission for "items". That is your permission to take more then one. The statements in the war gear section describe how a model takes an item from that list. It does not allow a model to take an item from that list, if it did then a chaos cultist could have the black mace.

The unit option does not say you can take multiple items from the list. That is absolutely incorrect.

You can take one apple? I'd grab one apple and acknowledge that I have hit the limit. But if I was told I could have apples and that to take an apple I need to replace one dollar with one apple I could give you 10 dollars and take 10 apples. And that is the problem right there. You can replace X with Y is a statement that sets up the equivalency of X to Y, better known as a ratio. The sentence would need to be written like "A model can replace up to one X with Y" for it to have the meaning so many people seem to think it has. Do you disagree that models in the Dark Angel codex that can take items from the melee wargear section can take a pair of lightning claws?

The bolded is your incorrect summation if what the unit rules say.
You're allowed to take items from multiple lists. It must be plural since you're allowed to take something from the Melee list and something from the ranged list.

 Bausk wrote:
I gather from Haraldus' reply there is at least one item that doesn't require a weapon swap.

Correct. The Phoenix Gem (I think) does not require a weapon swap.

I see DJs point and accept it as a valid interpretation even if I disagree with it. I also agree that an FaQ would put it to bed one way or the other nicely, until then or until I, or anyone else who'd care to have a look, dig the old Dexs out from where ever I've put them I'd suggest discussing with your opponent or TO.

There is a specified number of items that the game allows you to take. One.

Like I said before there not only IS a specified # but even if you interpret the word one in some other ludicrous manner the game is permissive. You cannot slam a war gear option 20 times just because the rules of the game or rather how you interpret the rules doesn't say 'you cannot'.


Does anyone actually play like this? You'd be laughed at unfortunately if you brought it to even the most casual of LGS's in my area.


Edit: the burden of proof is on anyone arguing against this to quote codex's an defend their point against war gear selections that would break the game in half if their view was played out. I don't need to quote a SM codex because I know tac marines get x HW per 10. Not the permission to take as many as they like just because you have 10.

'You may take one apple'

You misunderstood his standpoint. The phasing is easily interpreted as a ratio, written as it is to save time and effort explaining the various weapon swaps from bolt pistols and ccws to force weapons and combibolters. Add to this no specific limitation on the options for the unit as we see with other items listed in the options for units.

Also update, found two early 3rd ed dex's and the layout for the wargear section was too different to compare. May have to find a 4th ed or dig deeper for the old 2nd ed dex. However 2nd ed was more bases on wargear cards...

I am not misunderstanding his viewpoint as my hypothetical question is clearly a ratio aswell IF viewed in the same manner.


They are not ratios however, they grant one weapon.

I always interpreted it as a ratio. If they'd wanted it to actually limit weapons to 1, they'd have said "A model may replace up to one X with Y."

So your saying you'd take 20 apples?

There interpretation of words has nothing to do with 40k. My posed question is just as relevant as a quote from a codex. Although I am getting close to pulling one out anyways just because I can't get a response from my orchards generosity.

Your hypothetical would be more accurate if it was; "one apple for one dollar" signed on the apple basket. "Swap your watch and/or belt for an orange" on the orange basket. Then tell the patron they may buy items from the baskets.

Shrike they use the same syntax for the Chaos icons that they use for Ranged weapons and as I said before they are not going to list the many weapons that could be swapped, this is just as true as they are unlikely to alter the syntax of a specific limitation in another section. Both interpretations are possible, it's just a matter of working out which one is correct.

-Shrike- wrote:
I always interpreted it as a ratio. If they'd wanted it to actually limit weapons to 1, they'd have said "A model may replace up to one X with Y."

Except htey only told you to replace one for one. Where does it say you can repeat this for a second time?

Aijec wrote:
So your saying you'd take 20 apples?

There interpretation of words has nothing to do with 40k. My posed question is just as relevant as a quote from a codex. Although I am getting close to pulling one out anyways just because I can't get a response from my orchards generosity.

Can you answer a hypothetical for me?
Let say we have an Independent character unit, and that model's default war gear is a

Wargear:

Terminator Armor

Storm Bolter

Power Sword

Storm Shield

In his unit entry he has this option.

May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Special weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists.

The chapter relics list looks like this.

Chapter Relics
A model can replace two weapons with one of the following:

Sword of Omens

Hammer of Thundera

Claw Shield

What might the IC's wargear look like if the only change to its wargear was it took the sword of omens?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
I always interpreted it as a ratio. If they'd wanted it to actually limit weapons to 1, they'd have said "A model may replace up to one X with Y."

Except htey only told you to replace one for one. Where does it say you can repeat this for a second time?

In the same place it gave you permission to take anything at all from the wargear section.

Ah, so nowhere then. As that doesnt tell you how many times you can use the "one for one" rule, at all. Ever.

The real question, and it might be already answered but din't see it, is what the hell is the point of having two plasma pistols?...

A model can only shoot with ONE weapon during the shooting phase anyway...

The only exceptions are MC's, Exo armors , vehicles and Centurions...

Maybe i've missed something in my chaos dex, but an CSM Asp Champ, isn't any of these above...

So i really don't see why are people arguing about this...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
The real question, and it might be already answered but din't see it, is what the hell is the point of having two plasma pistols?...

A model can only shoot with ONE weapon during the shooting phase anyway...

The only exceptions are MC's, Exo armors , vehicles and Centurions...

Maybe i've missed something in my chaos dex, but an CSM Asp Champ, isn't any of these above...

So i really don't see why are people arguing about this...

See BRB, "Gunslinger"

Page 52

Well i'll be damned!

Its indeed interesting.

i really wonder why is it that i never saw anybody do this at our LGC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so nowhere then. As that doesnt tell you how many times you can use the "one for one" rule, at all. Ever.

This is incorrect. The option says "may take items". This predicate is clear and complete.

'items' is the plural noun form of item. When a plural noun form is being used it refers to more then one.

'may' is a modal verb modifying the 'take' action to make it not required.

While not proper grammar, it is accepted grammar that the use of a modal verb in relation to a plural noun means the singular form of the noun is also correct.

This predicate gives subject permission to take one, none, or more then one item."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Well i'll be damned!

Its indeed interesting.

i really wonder why is it that i never saw anybody do this at our LGC.

Maybe because two plasma pistols is kinda expensive and doubles your chances of loosing a wound instead of shooting I've actually done it in one game, first time my guy shot he killed himself.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so nowhere then. As that doesnt tell you how many times you can use the "one for one" rule, at all. Ever.

This is incorrect. The option says "may take items". This predicate is clear and complete.

'items' is the plural noun form of item. When a plural noun form is being used it refers to more then one.

'may' is a modal verb modifying the 'take' action to make it not required.

While not proper grammar, it is accepted grammar that the use of a modal verb in relation to a plural noun means the singular form of the noun is also correct.

This predicate gives subject permission to take one, none, or more then one item."

And, as you continue to ignore, that means literally nothing. Why? Because there are multiple lists in the statement you're referencing. You're allowed to take multiple items on some lists, only one item on others. You may take one, none, or more than one item from the following. Your implication is that those lists cannot further restrict your permission but that's absolutely false - in fact it shows a complete misunderstanding of how to read English in general and rules specifically.

Yes, because there are multiple lists. So you can indeed take items, plural, but only have permisison to exchange one weapon for one, when it comes to the specific list. Acting as a restriction.

To answer the question, I have to cry ignorance... is an SS refered to as a weapon. I'm 99% sure it's not.

If it is not a weapon there is only 1 permutation.

Term
Sword of omens
SS

In your example there is no limiting factor so the ratio is repeatable. Of course you do not meet the requirements of said ratio again since you only have 1 weapon now.

Furthermore there is a flaw in your posed problem, I don't believe GW has ever grouped wargear selections with two different ratios together. Assuming the option to take a (power sword or whatever) replaces one weapon as per usual.

They would split the selections up for clarity.




Now answer mine please. And all the other valid points that were made while I was crushing an eldar player today

rigeld2 wrote:And, as you continue to ignore, that means literally nothing. Why? Because there are multiple lists in the statement you're referencing. You're allowed to take multiple items on some lists, only one item on others. You may take one, none, or more than one item from the following. Your implication is that those lists cannot further restrict your permission but that's absolutely false - in fact it shows a complete misunderstanding of how to read English in general and rules specifically.

I've never said the statements at the beginning of the lists couldn't restrict you to a single permutation, I've only said that as they are written they don't. The unit option does not specify how may items per list, it gives permission for multiple items, and multiple lists. The only way to read that is permission for 0 or more items from each list.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, because there are multiple lists. So you can indeed take items, plural, but only have permission to exchange one weapon for one, when it comes to the specific list. Acting as a restriction.

But it does not act as a restriction, as I have pointed out numerous times "replace X with Y" does not prevent further further permission to replace a 2nd X with a 2nd Y. It only describes that to gain Y you must loose X. If the statements said "replace up to one X with Y" it WOULD be a restriction on further permissions.

Aijec wrote:To answer the question, I have to cry ignorance... is an SS refered to as a weapon. I'm 99% sure it's not.

If it is not a weapon there is only 1 permutation.

Term
Sword of omens
SS

In your example there is no limiting factor so the ratio is repeatable. Of course you do not meet the requirements of said ratio again since you only have 1 weapon now.

Furthermore there is a flaw in your posed problem, I don't believe GW has ever grouped wargear selections with two different ratios together. Assuming the option to take a (power sword or whatever) replaces one weapon as per usual.

They would split the selections up for clarity.




Now answer mine please. And all the other valid points that were made while I was crushing an eldar player today

Every single argument that "one weapon" is a limiting factor would also mean that "two weapons" is also a limiting factor but you were more then happy to allow more then happy to allow the model to replace more then two weapons if he had more then two weapons because you recognized "two weapons" only to be the direct object of the replacement action and that "two" was just the quantity of what was being replaced, Why would it be any different with any other number? Why do you feel "replace one X with one Y" is not a ratio but "replace two X with one Y" is?

GW has grouped different ratios together. Anytime a list uses the conjunction and/or in its statement that list has either a 2 for 1 or a 1 for 1 ratio. Outside of that, no other list has a statement with a ratio has been anything other then 1 for 1.

When GW only wants the unit to take a single item from a list it does split the options up to clarify. They have not done that here,

What question of yours do you feel I have not answered?

DJ - again, where is your permission to repeat the one for one? You have yet to show it.

It acts as a restriction; if they had wanted it to be "any" number then they could easily have written that. They didnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - again, where is your permission to repeat the one for one? You have yet to show it.

It acts as a restriction; if they had wanted it to be "any" number then they could easily have written that. They didnt.

Again, you have permission to take items from a set of lists. That is your permission to take more then one item from the same list; that is your permission to repeat one for one.

It does not act as a restriction. I understand you disagree but your opinion is not a valid counter argument if you don't support it with facts. Yes they could have used 'any' in place of 'one' and they probably should have, but if they intended you to take a single item from the list why did they not make a separate option for it like they did with other units? Why didn't they use "up to one" like they did with other lists?

DJ I can see how in can be interpreted both ways, I am disappointed that you don't see how it can be interpreted another way to your view. I also agree that your view has merit based on the way you have presented it.

However as I looked at my old 3rd ed codexes I affirmed that the wargear section in those was treated like an expansive unified options list with its own limitations. While, as I said, the format was different the the use was the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As with other lists? Which lists?

 Bausk wrote:
DJ I can see how in can be interpreted both ways, I am disappointed that you don't see how it can be interpreted another way to your view. I also agree that your view has merit based on the way you have presented it.

However as I looked at my old 3rd ed codexes I affirmed that the wargear section in those was treated like an expansive unified options list with its own limitations. While, as I said, the format was different the the use was the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As with other lists? Which lists?

I can see how it can be interpreted both ways, let me make that clear. It needs to be FAQ'd. I am arguing against the idea that it must be interpreted in a way that is counter to how I feel it should be interpreted.

Thank you for looking at the older codices. I'm not saying the war gear section here can't provide a limitation, and in fact it often does by limiting what types of things can be replaced. I just don't think the specific restriction some have claimed actually exists with the way these books have been written.

DJ - no, it does not state you may then repeat the action more than once. It just says in total you may have itemS, and then you are told exactly how to achieve that.

Your interpretation ends up swapping 2 for 2, when you only have explicit permission to swap 1 for 1

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - no, it does not state you may then repeat the action more than once. It just says in total you may have itemS, and then you are told exactly how to achieve that.

Your interpretation ends up swapping 2 for 2, when you only have explicit permission to swap 1 for 1

The part highlighted in red keeps being tossed about like its a fact. Prove it.

Proven, repeatedly. You only have one instance where it states one for one. Do you have anything saying you can use that line more than once - anything EXPLICITLY stating that? No. Then you may not use it more than once.

Your 2 for 2 has no permission; it is not 1 for 1 twice, it is 2 for 2, and you only have been given permission for 1 for 1

Ehhh, no. It has been proven that for one chainsword, you can get one plasma pistol. For one bolt pistol, you can get a combi-melta. As examples.

That's what my codex says at least.

Not really proven for either side yet. We have two interpretations that are both valid. Even though I personally interpret it as a single swap now I did also originally view it as a ratio swap. This is why I view both sides as valid interpretations.

However the exact same syntax is used for Icons and I view the wargear section as a unified options list because I've played since 2nd ed. Also I believe that they would have used 'Any' in place of 'One' if they intended any amount of weapons may be swapped.

This is just my interpretation however.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Ehhh, no. It has been proven that for one chainsword, you can get one plasma pistol. For one bolt pistol, you can get a combi-melta. As examples.

That's what my codex says at least.

In a Chaos Space Marine unit the wargear options lists the following:
One Chaos Space marine may replace his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol.
According to you, this allows all CSM in the unit to swap for a plasma pistol.
Or replace his bolt gun with a (special weapon).
Special weapons for everyone!
There's more - in the CAM codex even - but that should be enough. 19 plasma guns in a CSM squad is an interesting interpretation.

If one is not a limit you break things.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Proven, repeatedly. You only have one instance where it states one for one. Do you have anything saying you can use that line more than once - anything EXPLICITLY stating that? No. Then you may not use it more than once.

Your 2 for 2 has no permission; it is not 1 for 1 twice, it is 2 for 2, and you only have been given permission for 1 for 1

No, it has not been proven at all. People keep saying it like its a thing, but not one single person has taken the time to explain how the rules of English could mean that. Repeatedly stating your opinion is not the same as providing proof.

Do you recognize the difference between "A model can replace one weapon" and "One weapon can be replaced"? How about "One veteran can replace his bolt pistol and/or chainsword with a plasma pistol for 20 points" and One veteran can replace his bolt pistol and/or a chainsword with a plasma pistol for 20 points each"

If a model had a bolt pistol, a boltgun, and a chainsword and was given permission to take items from the artifact list and the list had the following statement "A model can replace two weapons with one artifact." what are all the possible weapon/artifact load outs the model could end up with and why?

No, it has been proven. You have no permission to repeat the "one for one" action - being told you can take items does not *explicitly* state this, therefore you have no explicit permission.

Find the explicit permission.

You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

I wonder what the Special Issue wargear list says...
Oh. A model can take up to one of each of the following. It's like that's permission to take more than one. Wow.

Edit: the Unit entry gives permission to take from a range of lists (plural because there's more than one list).
The list entry dictates the requirements for that individual list.

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

No, it says in total you can get items from the lists.. It then tells you the rules for selecting from each list. Absent a rule saying how you select, you could indeed have whatever you want. Instead you have a rule saying 1 for 1 - and NO RULE saying you are allowed to repeat the 1 for 1 selection.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

No, it says in total you can get items from the lists.. It then tells you the rules for selecting from each list. Absent a rule saying how you select, you could indeed have whatever you want. Instead you have a rule saying 1 for 1 - and NO RULE saying you are allowed to repeat the 1 for 1 selection.

You said it yourself. You can get items from the list. We have a rule saying its 1 for 1. What we don't have is a rule to limit us to just 1 for just 1 and we need that because we already have permission for more then one.

No, you can get items from the lists. Both works are plural and you're treating the latter as singular. You do not have permission for more than one.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

No, it says in total you can get items from the lists.. It then tells you the rules for selecting from each list. Absent a rule saying how you select, you could indeed have whatever you want. Instead you have a rule saying 1 for 1 - and NO RULE saying you are allowed to repeat the 1 for 1 selection.

You said it yourself. You can get items from the list. We have a rule saying its 1 for 1. What we don't have is a rule to limit us to just 1 for just 1 and we need that because we already have permission for more then one.

ListS , not list. You have NO PERMISSION to repeat the one for one action, absolutely none. If you disagree, prove it. Continuing failure to prove your assertion is going to be treated as concession you are not arguing RAW

Aside from the repeating 1 for 1, can you do the 1 for 1 and the none for 1?

Homer

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ListS , not list. You have NO PERMISSION to repeat the one for one action, absolutely none. If you disagree, prove it. Continuing failure to prove your assertion is going to be treated as concession you are not arguing RAW

"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."

Weather it is 'list' or 'listS' it is still ITEMS. The unit may take "items". This is the permission to take more then one item. The use of the 'and' conjunction (part of the and/or conjunction) coupled with the modal verb 'may' allows the items to all come from a single list or any combination of lists. To deny this would mean to deny the unit, in this case a Chapter Master, could ever take more then one item from any one list.

With out these sentences the unit option enables us to take as many items as we want because 'items' is not quantified. These sentences instruct us on how to take an item. Our inability to follow these instructions is what prevents us from taking as many items as we want.

The sentence structure of "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" only serves to set up a ratio. "one weapon" is the direct object of the replace action and can only describe what is being replaced as the unit takes an item from this list. As long as I have one weapon t replace I can follow the instructions to take an item from this list and because I have permission to take more then one item from this list I have permission to replace more then one item.

This is where the counter argument has its greatest flaw. I constantly hear that this sentence does provide a limit to the number of items because it uses the cardinal number 'one' in the unit description instead of the word 'any'. You need to prove there is a significant difference between the use of 'one' and the use of 'any' in this sentence. With out that proof you are not arguing RAW.

The permission to take more then one item and thus replace more then one item comes from the unit option. For this sentence to limit the model to replacing single weapon the sentence would require additional language. Other sentences do have this additional language. They use "up to" to limit the unit to a single item.

Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

yes. I am taking two of the following. I must replace one for one and thus must replace two weapons. Nothing restricts me from doing this.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

yes. I am taking two of the following. I must replace one for one and thus must replace two weapons. Nothing restricts me from doing this.

Except the rules for the specific list of course.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

yes. I am taking two of the following. I must replace one for one and thus must replace two weapons. Nothing restricts me from doing this.

Except the rules for the specific list of course.

Care to explain that? How does the rule "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" mean anything other that to take one of the following you must replace one weapon.

Because you are not replacing one for one, you are replacing two for two.

 Happyjew wrote:
Because you are not replacing one for one, you are replacing two for two.

Um, Yes I am . Two for two is a ratio, and 2:2 can be reduced to 1:1.

Two for two = one for one.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Two for two = one for one.

This is so wrong.
Assuming it's a ratio, what allows you to reduce it?

You can't just reduce any assumed ratio just because you feel like it.
If you're told you can exchange two things for two other things and you bring one, you get nothing.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Two for two = one for one.

This is so wrong.
Assuming it's a ratio, what allows you to reduce it?

You can't just reduce any assumed ratio just because you feel like it.
If you're told you can exchange two things for two other things and you bring one, you get nothing.

Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact. @ for 2 will always equal 1 for 1. In your example I can't exchange anything because I need two things to start the process. If I had two things I would in fact being exchanging them at a ratio of 1:1 because I would also be getting two things.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

DJGietzen does some good rules lawyering and i think technically is correct.

Having 2+ weapons on a model + we can replace one weapon with another one. One here is used to describe how many weapons need to be traded for the benefit of a new one weapon and does not limit from further application of the rule to other weapons on the model. And now ill repeat the process without breaking any grammar.

And now i will turn water into funk.

Written rules can be broken if you try hard enough. A AC with 2 plasma pistol is fine but if you take this approach to tabletop gaming with a WAAC attitude your doing it wrong and WH40k and tabletop gaming will be reallly unfun.

PS.

This bit about ratios is a bit of a stretch imo.

Ithani wrote:
DJGietzen does some good rules lawyering and i think technically is correct.

He's not technically or figuratively correct at all. He's produced no rule, probably because one doesn't exist, allowing you to take two options from a list that says you can take one option.

His argument is entirely that you can do something one at a time as many times as you want. If you want to do it his way, you end up with being able to take 19 plasma guns in CSM squad, and other nonsense.

There is utterly no rules to back up his position and he has offered no actual rules to defend it.

He's trying to confuse people with worthless and baseless rhetoric that simply doesn't exist.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

Wrong ratios can always be reduced. Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form. In your example the ratio is 1:1. You are exchanging one set of two things for 1 set of two things.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form.

What's allowing you to use the simplest form?
There is no law saying any and all ratios can be reduced no matter what the circumstances. None at all.
If there's no reason to reduce a ratio, then it doesn't get reduced. There's no reason here.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean you're allowed.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

Wrong ratios can always be reduced. Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form. In your example the ratio is 1:1. You are exchanging one set of two things for 1 set of two things.

So you're also advocating 19 man plasma gun CSM squads?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

Wrong ratios can always be reduced. Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form. In your example the ratio is 1:1. You are exchanging one set of two things for 1 set of two things.

So you're also advocating 19 man plasma gun CSM squads?

He absolutely is.
If a ratio can always be reduced, it can also always be enlarged.
The 1:1 ratio of plasma guns can simply be enlarged to a 19:19 ratio.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

His argument is entirely that you can do something one at a time as many times as you want. If you want to do it his way, you end up with being able to take 19 plasma guns in CSM squad, and other nonsense.

There is utterly no rules to back up his position and he has offered no actual rules to defend it.

He's trying to confuse people with worthless and baseless rhetoric that simply doesn't exist.

Id say its the wording thats creating confusion and hes debating a point of semantics. I wouldnt say hes set out to confuse or mislead people rather, create a discussion with the intention of learning more about the game.

I wouldnt say his arguments are worthless, baseless or rhetoric because that seems like a emotional and personal judgement rather than a discussion of op's content.

If the above arguments havent made you uncertain then nothing i say is going to register. I dont see any text that convinces me with certaintt that the "one" applies to the amount of swaps you can do. I read it as the nature of the swap itself- one for one.

Ithani wrote:

If the above arguments havent made you uncertain then nothing i say is going to register. I dont see any text that convinces me with certaintt that the "one" applies to the amount of swaps you can do. I read it as the nature of the swap itself- one for one.

I guess we'll put you in the 19 plasma gun squad camp then.

DJ - and, again, you have yet to show permission to repeat the restrictive one for one phrase. Absolutely none.

This has been explained. over and over, and you simply respond with "its a ratio"; true, it is also an action that you are being permitted to take. Nothing then permits you to repeat the action AT ALL, you cannot show this, and you refuse to see this restriction as being in force

We're back to were we were 5 pages ago, with no sign of moving on. I guess I'll take 19 plasma guns in one squad then, as you can "always" reduce a ratio, yes?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - and, again, you have yet to show permission to repeat the restrictive one for one phrase. Absolutely none.

No, I have shown you have permission to take multiple items. I have affirmed that to take those items you must meet a requirement. I have yet to see any proof that the requirement to take one item cannot be met multiple times.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This has been explained. over and over, and you simply respond with "its a ratio"; true, it is also an action that you are being permitted to take. Nothing then permits you to repeat the action AT ALL, you cannot show this, and you refuse to see this restriction as being in force

The permission to take an unspecified number of items permits you to repeat this action. I have explained this both with grammar and syntax as well as with examples in the codex where this must be true. If you missed those posts you should proboboly re-read this thread. Of course I do not see a restriction. You have not provided proof of one. You simple say "its a restriction" and your opinion is not proof.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
We're back to were we were 5 pages ago, with no sign of moving on. I guess I'll take 19 plasma guns in one squad then, as you can "always" reduce a ratio, yes?

Yes, we are back to people ignoring 90% of what I post in this thread. No you cannot take 19 plasma guns. Nothing I have said should have ever given you the impression that is OK. Its an inglorious proposition that ignores the majority of what I have been saying.

"One model can replace his boltgun with a plasma gun" is not the same as "a model can replace his boltguns;replace one boltgun with one plasma gun."


Ratios CAN ALWAYS BE REDUCED. How many movies do you own that list the aspect ratio as 1920:1080? Here is a hint, its 0. They list it as a 16:9 aspect ratio because for every 16 pixels wide the movie is 9 pixels tall even though its a minimum of 1920 pixels wide for the resolution its shown in.

Ah yes, I see that people have begun spamming strawmen to ridicule DJGietzen again. What is it this time? 19 plasma guns? Really? If you want to ridicule him, at least do it in a way that is not blatantly obvious that he did not mean.

Get over yourselves already, this is getting annoying to read.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:


Get over yourselves already, this is getting annoying to read.

Noone is forcing you to read. Its viable discussion strategy to show what impact certain rules interpretations have on other rules and point out how they would be absurd. Thats having an impact on the argument at hand.

Problem with all these exchange 1 for 1 sentences in the codices is that they can be misunderstood and therefor are misunderstood by a lot of people. Its a constant mistake GW makes when writing codices and apparently not enough people send in questions about that particular wording over the years to make them clarifiy the issue.

In the end i would advocate the max 1 item stance but cba.

 Mywik wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:


Get over yourselves already, this is getting annoying to read.

Noone is forcing you to read. Its viable discussion strategy to show what impact certain rules interpretations have on other rules and point out how they would be absurd. Thats having an impact on the argument at hand.

Problem with all these exchange 1 for 1 sentences in the codices is that they can be misunderstood and therefor are misunderstood by a lot of people. Its a constant mistake GW makes when writing codices and apparently not enough people send in questions about that particular wording over the years to make them clarifiy the issue.

In the end i would advocate the max 1 item stance but cba.

If DJGietzen says that the following:

Codex:CSM wrote:The Chosen Champion may take items from the
Melee Weapons and/ or Ranged Weapons sections
of the wargear list.

Together with

Codex:CSM wrote:A model can replace one weapon with
one of the following:
- Combi-bolter ................................................................... 3 pts
-Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma .................................. 10 pts
-Plasma pistol... ............................................................... 15 pts

Means that one can take multiple items, then he is free to argue so. That does not make ludicrous strawmen a "viable discussion strategy". For example, those that proclaimed that DJGietzen's argument indicated that the following:

Codex:CSM wrote:One Chaos Space Marine may replace
his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol .................. 15 pts
Or replace his boltgun with a:
-Flamer ............................................................... 5 pts
- Meltagun ......................................................... 10 pts
- Plasma gun .... .............................. .................... 15 pts

Meant that you could take 19 plasma guns... Discussing is one thing, ridiculing is one another. I like the former, but when I see the later thrown around... Ugh.

Dj - so you have no permission you can point to, no permissive wording to repeat the action, just an assumption on your part that you can do so,.

Nothing new, one for one is not the same as two for two.

His argument is that "one" is not a limitation. He's repeatedly said so. It's not a Strawman to point out the consequences of that stance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dj - so you have no permission you can point to, no permissive wording to repeat the action, just an assumption on your part that you can do so,.

Nothing new, one for one is not the same as two for two.

Permission to take items is permission to take more then one item. This is not an assumption.

rigeld2 wrote:His argument is that "one" is not a limitation. He's repeatedly said so. It's not a Strawman to point out the consequences of that stance.

No, actually my argument is that the use of 'one' in the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" is not a limitation while the use of one in "A model can take one plasma gun." is a limitation. Its the syntax and grammar of the sentence that shapes the value of the words and the overall meaning of the sentence.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Kinda like whats been going on in this thread.


I'd like to add, that I have REPEATEDLY explained why my position makes sense with the rules of the English language and not once have I heard a proper explanation as to why the counter argument should ever make sense.

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, actually my argument is that the use of 'one' in the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" is not a limitation while the use of one in "A model can take one plasma gun." is a limitation. Its the syntax and grammar of the sentence that shapes the value of the words and the overall meaning of the sentence.

It's almost like that's not what the rules we're talking about says. No, wait - that's exactly what it's like.
Using your argument, "One CSM may replace..." means there's no inherent limitation.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Kinda like whats been going on in this thread.

If I ignored your position and substituted a different version that would be correct. I'm not. I'm using your exact stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I'd like to add, that I have REPEATEDLY explained why my position makes sense with the rules of the English language and not once have I heard a proper explanation as to why the counter argument should ever make sense.

Because I'm not an English major and don't feel like breaking the sentence down like that.
But in the classes I took your method and definition was incorrect.

There is a huge difference between a limitation on how many models can purchase wargear and a ratio on how many wargear a single model may swap out.


If you cant understand that then there isnt a whole lot anyone can tell you to satisfy your questioning.

Eihnlazer wrote:
There is a huge difference between a limitation on how many models can purchase wargear and a ratio on how many wargear a single model may swap out.

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

I've highlighted in red the problem with your logic. That statement does not represent a ratio.

One marine may replace.....

Thats it. One guy. You have no confusion on this issue right?

This is a flat out limitation on the unit.

On the other side we have:

Seargent may take "weapon's" from the following list:
Swaping one weapon for one weapon, then swap one weapon for one weapon breaks no rules.

This is a ratio of trade for using the wargear list. It places no limitation on the model or unit except that he cannot trade 1 weapon for 2 weapons, or 2 weapons for 1 weapon. He has to trade them 1 for 1.

Dj - again, you cannot show permission to repeat the one for one. Concession accepted, please mark your posts also hywpi to follow the forum tenets, thank you

Eihnlazer wrote:
One marine may replace.....

Thats it. One guy. You have no confusion on this issue right?

This is a flat out limitation on the unit.

Good!

On the other side we have:

Seargent may take "weapon's" from the following list:
Swaping one weapon for one weapon, then swap one weapon for one weapon breaks no rules.

The bolded is not what the rules say at all. Perhaps you'd like to use actual rules instead of making things up to try and prove your point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

I've highlighted in red the problem with your logic. That statement does not represent a ratio.

One CSM may replace his boltgun...
One weapon can be swapped for one thing...

Both are ratios. You're asserting only one of them is repeatable. Please explain why.

um, im sorry i said weapons instead of items, but in this context they mean the exact same thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dj - again, you cannot show permission to repeat the one for one. Concession accepted, please mark your posts also hywpi to follow the forum tenets, thank you

I am demonstrating how the RAW should be read. I have shown this permission numerous times.

DJGietzen wrote:You said it yourself. You can get items from the list. We have a rule saying its 1 for 1. What we don't have is a rule to limit us to just 1 for just 1 and we need that because we already have permission for more then one.

DJGietzen wrote:Again, you have permission to take items from a set of lists. That is your permission to take more then one item from the same list; that is your permission to repeat one for one.

DJGietzen wrote:The option says "may take items". This predicate is clear and complete.

'items' is the plural noun form of item. When a plural noun form is being used it refers to more then one.

'may' is a modal verb modifying the 'take' action to make it not required.

While not proper grammar, it is accepted grammar that the use of a modal verb in relation to a plural noun means the singular form of the noun is also correct.

This predicate gives subject permission to take one, none, or more then one item."

DJGietzen wrote:And you are always giver permission to take items from the relics/artifacts section. Not one codex that uses a wargear section has given permission to take a single item. They all give permission to take items.

DJGietzen wrote:I replace them one at a time. A permison granted by the unit option to take items from the wargear section. Each time I replace one weapon with one of something else...I have replaced one, then I have replaced another one. I could theoretically waste points continuing to replace the same weapon over and over and over again, but that would be silly. The permission to continue to replace additional weapons after the 1st is in the unit option, not the wargear section.

The only reply I've gotten is "one weapon is a limitation". I ask for proof and I am ignored or told "no".

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up. - You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

"One weapon is a limitation" has no premise after 6 pages of argument. It is, at this point in the debate, an unsubstantiated opinion. Please abide by the tenets of this forum and back that opinion up.

Eihnlazer wrote:
um, im sorry i said weapons instead of items, but in this context they mean the exact same thing.

You also used the singular "list" instead of "lists" which is what the rule actually says. And that changes the meaning of the phrase significantly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
"One weapon is a limitation" has no premise after 6 pages of argument. It is, at this point in the debate, an unsubstantiated opinion. Please abide by the tenets of this forum and back that opinion up.

It has been backed up.

If you swap two weapons for 2 things, have you swapped one weapon?

The Chosen Champion may take items from the
Melee Weapons and/ or Ranged Weapons sections
of the wargear list.


This is a direct copy of the rule from above.

What "lists" are you talking about?

Eihnlazer wrote:
The Chosen Champion may take items from the
Melee Weapons and/ or Ranged Weapons sections
of the wargear list


This is a direct copy of the rule from above.

What "lists" are you talking about?

I bolded the part that means it's plural. You treating it as a singular is a misinterpretation. You're (now) obviously doing it deliberately in an attempt to give your point more support.

edit: The word "items" must be plural even if you can only take one from each list (because of the and/or).

It is talking about multiple lists true, but that does not mean that you are limited to one item per list either.


It simply says take items, and refferences the lists you can take the item from. You then refference those lists and it tells you the ratio at which you can take items.


Are you saying that because it is saying 'items" from multiple lists that you can only take 1 from each?

Eihnlazer wrote:
It is talking about multiple lists true, but that does not mean that you are limited to one item per list either.


It simply says take items, and refferences the lists you can take the item from. You then refference those lists and it tells you the ratio at which you can take items.


Are you saying that because it is saying 'items" from multiple lists that you can only take 1 from each?

I'm saying that the unit list isn't an absolute determination.
You need to look at the lists invovled to see what's permitted.

rigeld2 wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
One marine may replace.....

Thats it. One guy. You have no confusion on this issue right?

This is a flat out limitation on the unit.

Good!

On the other side we have:

Seargent may take "weapon's" from the following list:
Swaping one weapon for one weapon, then swap one weapon for one weapon breaks no rules.

The bolded is not what the rules say at all. Perhaps you'd like to use actual rules instead of making things up to try and prove your point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

I've highlighted in red the problem with your logic. That statement does not represent a ratio.

One CSM may replace his boltgun...
One weapon can be swapped for one thing...

Both are ratios. You're asserting only one of them is repeatable. Please explain why.

"One weapon can be swapped" =/= "One weapon can be swapped for one thing"

A ratio demonstrates the relationship between two or more numerical values. By including "for one thing" in the statement you have done that. You are now showing the relationship between the number of 'weapons' and the number of 'things' in the swap action. When you did not include that you changed the meaning of your sentence. Without the "for one thing" clause the statement was only about a weapon and weather or not it can be swapped. Now its about what it can be swapped for.

"One CSM may replace" =/= One CSM may replace his boltgun

The 1st statement is not a complete though and is meaningless. The second statement is not a ratio. While we have an implicit quantity of one because you used 'his boltgun' and not 'his boltguns' there is no second quantitiy in the statement and as such there is no ratio. All this sentence is talking about is if a CSM can replace his boltgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
"One weapon is a limitation" has no premise after 6 pages of argument. It is, at this point in the debate, an unsubstantiated opinion. Please abide by the tenets of this forum and back that opinion up.

It has been backed up.

Where? When? Quote?

rigeld2 wrote:

If you swap two weapons for 2 things, have you swapped one weapon?

Yes. If you are 20 years old, are you 10 years old? Yes.

If you swap two weapons for 2 things have you swapped only one weapon or up to one weapon? No. If you are 20 years old, are you only 10 years old or up to 10 years old. No.

 DJGietzen wrote:

"One CSM may replace" =/= One CSM may replace his boltgun

The 1st statement is not a complete though and is meaningless. The second statement is not a ratio. While we have an implicit quantity of one because you used 'his boltgun' and not 'his boltguns' there is no second quantitiy in the statement and as such there is no ratio. All this sentence is talking about is if a CSM can replace his boltgun.

Okay - I've been trying not to copy the entire sentence into the thread, but since it looks like I have to...

One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun. That's how the rule is worded.

Where? When? Quote?

Look down. Just the latest proof.

Yes. If you are 20 years old, are you 10 years old? Yes.

No. If you're 20 years old you are not 10 years old. Factually incorrect statement. You are at least 10 years old, but you are not 10 years old.

Dj - you appear now to be trolling. If you are 20, you are NOT 10; you WERE 10

You may swap.... Does not let you take two, it lets you take one. If you were able to take two it would say so. Or it would say any. But it doesn't, it says 1. You're taking two, which you have no permission for

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dj - you appear now to be trolling. If you are 20, you are NOT 10; you WERE 10

you were 10 and you still are 10. You can gain additional qualities with out replaceing or removing previous ones. It would be correct, however inaccurate, to give your age as less then its current value. We do it all the time in both the US and the UK. Saying something like "you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes." does not exclude the 19 and older crowd from buying a smoke. They are still 18 in addition to being 19.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You may swap.... Does not let you take two, it lets you take one. If you were able to take two it would say so. Or it would say any. But it doesn't, it says 1. You're taking two, which you have no permission for

You may take items lets you take more then one. If that is not true than no model may ever have more then one item from any list. It could say any, and that would be more accurate but that does not invalidate the meaning it currently has. Permission for more then one is granted. The list describes a relationship for replacing one thing with one other thing. This description does not stop or prevent the permission to take more then one item because 'one' is a determiner that is part of a ratio.

@rigeld2

1) "One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun." = A permission for one space marine to replace his boltgun with something specific. This permission is for a single item so while it is a ratio of 1:1 there is no permission to repeat it. This is not the the same situation however because this is bot the permission to replace an item and the description of how to do so. Unlike this, the situations we have been discussing have permission to take more then one item. To properly mirror what we have been dealing with this statement should read "One CSM may replace his boltguns with one plasma gun each."

2) Thats not proof. Care to point to where you already provided proof.

3) "at least" means at a minimum. You are always at least 1 years old. You can ask if some one is at least 10 years old. If they are 20 they can answer yes because you have asked if there age falls within the range of 10+.

 DJGietzen wrote:
1) "One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun." = A permission for one space marine to replace his boltgun with something specific. This permission is for a single item so while it is a ratio of 1:1 there is no permission to repeat it. This is not the the same situation however because this is bot the permission to replace an item and the description of how to do so. Unlike this, the situations we have been discussing have permission to take more then one item. To properly mirror what we have been dealing with this statement should read "One CSM may replace his boltguns with one plasma gun each."

So you're cherry picking part of how ratios work?
If, as you say, ratios can always be reduced, then they can also always be enlarged.
A 1:1 ratio can also be a 12:12
So by your own logic, if there is permission to exchange one Bolter, there permission to exchange a hundred.
This isn't repeating, simply enlarging the ratio.

And you are still to prove that this is even a ratio, and not a simple exchange. There's quite a difference.
Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two more things, and you bring one...
Then you'll get nothing.
You've failed to meet the requirements of the exchange, no one said this was a ratio that could be reduced. That is pure assumption.

grendel083 wrote:72 6233596 So you're cherry picking part of how ratios work?
If, as you say, ratios can always be reduced, then they can also always be enlarged.
A 1:1 ratio can also be a 12:12

That is an interesting assertion you've made in my name. It also just demonstrates you've missed the point. There is no such thing as 12:12, it will always be reduced to 1:1. If you can get rid of 12 of something you can gt 12 of something ls because of the 1:1 ratio. It is not a 12:12 ratio.

grendel083 wrote:So by your own logic, if there is permission to exchange one Bolter, there permission to exchange a hundred.
This isn't repeating, simply enlarging the ratio.

Not by my logic.. If you can't exchange more then one thing then the ratio can only get you one thing.

grendel083 wrote:
And you are still to prove that this is even a ratio, and not a simple exchange. There's quite a difference.
Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two more things, and you bring one...
Then you'll get nothing.
You've failed to meet the requirements of the exchange, no one said this was a ratio that could be reduced. That is pure assumption.

OK, if you can exchange two things for two different things that is a 1:1 ratio. Just because the minimum you can exchange is 2 does not change the ratio you are working in. If I am selling apples by the dozen for $6 then I am selling them at an apple to dollar ratio of 2:1 but you only have permission to get 12 apples.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." This sentence has the subject of "A model" and the action of "replace". Replace requires a direct object, in this case "one weapon" to be a complete predicate. Because the sentence also contains the "with one of the following" clause that includes a preposition (with) and prepositional object (one of the following) the sentence serves to establish a relationship between the two objects. Because both object contain a numerical determiner (one) the relationship is a ratio. The presence of a ratio is itself not permission to repeat the replacement action repeatedly. However this sentence is preceded by the permission to take multiple object from a set of lists. That permission not only allows you to take one object from any list it also allows you to take multiple object from the same list. Because we have an open ended permission to take objects from this list the sentence with the ratio does not need to provide it.

So again you cannot show explicit permission, just permission you have inferred.

Your argument is conceded.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dj - you appear now to be trolling. If you are 20, you are NOT 10; you WERE 10

you were 10 and you still are 10. You can gain additional qualities with out replaceing or removing previous ones. It would be correct, however inaccurate, to give your age as less then its current value. We do it all the time in both the US and the UK. Saying something like "you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes." does not exclude the 19 and older crowd from buying a smoke. They are still 18 in addition to being 19.

No, really - context is important when discussing how people talk. In the cigarette context everyone know the words "at least" are implied. It's not because of some funky understanding that a 36 year old is 18.

1) "One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun." = A permission for one space marine to replace his boltgun with something specific. This permission is for a single item so while it is a ratio of 1:1 there is no permission to repeat it. This is not the the same situation however because this is bot the permission to replace an item and the description of how to do so. Unlike this, the situations we have been discussing have permission to take more then one item. To properly mirror what we have been dealing with this statement should read "One CSM may replace his boltguns with one plasma gun each."

No permission to repeat it? And yet you're asserting you have permission to repeat it? Are you serious?
Where's your permission? You have permission to take items from lists. This means that to take multiple items you must choose from multiple lists.

2) Thats not proof. Care to point to where you already provided proof.

Your lack of acceptance doesn't mean it's not proof.

3) "at least" means at a minimum. You are always at least 1 years old. You can ask if some one is at least 10 years old. If they are 20 they can answer yes because you have asked if there age falls within the range of 10+.

Correct - you understand "at least". Now, do you understand why your statement was false? A 20 year old is not 10. I know that because he's 20.

The point DJ is arguing originates from separating the units options list from the wargear section. Where the limitation, or lack there of from his interpretation, is in the units options.

This is a valid interpretation however I disagree and view the wargear section as a unified options list. For example Devestators use the Heavy Weapons list ( what is the swap for a heavy weapon?) Which to me seems to be a validation of the wargear section being a unifies options list.