Hey guys, I can't believe this has only just popped up but I recently versed a Space Wolf player who had a wolf lord loaded with all the relics, the codex clearly states "may replace one weapon with one of the following" which I read as you can only take one relic per character and it must replace one of his weapons.... both my opponent and the Tournament Organiser ruled that multiples can be taken! Am I going crazy?

It's a one-for-one swap, not "only one".

If you take 2 did you abide by the one for one rule?

If it was a tournament and the TO said it was legal, than it is allowed.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's a one-for-one swap, not "only one".

Incorrect. It is an "only one" swap.

You're adding the "only" part.

No, you're ignoring the "one" part. You're trying to read "one weapon for one relic" as "a weapon for a relic".

Oh, so there is an "only" in there somewhere?

"One" means just that, "one". You're trying to say that "one" can mean "two" or "three" or "four"...

I can have one can of Coke for one dollar.

I guess I'd better enjoy it if that's the only one I'll ever be able to buy, regardless of how many dollars I have...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I can have one can of Coke for one dollar.

At which point, you only have one can, not two or three or four. Your example proves my point.

"One" is a specific number and would be a definite article. "A" would be an indefinite article which would allow you to trade any number of weapons for relics on a one for one basis.

Rules are different in that they're permissive. They tell you what you are permitted to do. You're permitted to trade one weapon for one relic, no more. You are trying to change the wording of the rule to "a weapon for a relic". That is not what the rules say. They give a very specific quantity of "one".

The final and conclusive answer to this question is, we dont know.

GW didnt clearly right it out, and they haven't yet nor probably wont ever FAQ it.

One for one.

The issue is 'cloudy' because it has been on-going through so many editions, no matter what the original and on-going Intent it has been played so many different ways that people always view their own way as official. Tournaments events have reinforced it by allowing multiple swaps while others have ruled the other way at times, making a obvious schism. Game Workshop has remained silent on the matter, which we all know is pretty much normal given the jokes about Editors in Name Only.

Needless to say, with such uncertainty it allows people to do whatever they want anyway so the answers this question will bring back are less then useful....

Personally, I fume over how they have used and/or in such a brutal way so I will be less then useful. Given the same Author likely penned both poorly written Rules, I can't say what they might of wanted to do with 'One for One.' I just want you to be fore-warned this is one of the 'spawns dozens of pages then locked' threads that comes to life every few months on sites like this one. Best to go into it knowing that nothing useful will be forth-coming so you can jump to discussing House Rules with your opponents, much more useful.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
One for one.

And only one.

 Ghaz wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
One for one.

And only one.

Which isn't stated, and considering the language on other books it's typically able to stack.

Of course one could still by your logic, take a weapon for weapon, Helm of Durfast, Wulfen stone, and Armour of Russ, which would be silly if it's just a one per one only weapon trade.

It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
One for one.

And only one.

Which isn't stated, and considering the language on other books it's typically able to stack.

That's your (incorrect) assumptions. Other books are limited in the same way.

 Ghaz wrote:
It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

But then it's "more than one". Your viewpoint cannot be shown in the rules without the addition of "only".

And again, where do the rules give you permission for more than one? They don't. "One" means just that, "one". You're trying to make "one" mean something other than "one".

I don't have to prove that "one" means "one". You have to prove that "one" means something other than "one" that you keep insisting.

This sort of thing comes up every single edition and (more often than not) with every new Codex.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

If you replace two weapons, you haven't replaced one weapon.

If it said "a model can replace any weapon with one of the following" you would be able to argue that the model could take two (provided they had two weapons to trade). One ≠ any, however, so the limit is one per model.

Now if the TO rules that you can take more than one, fair enough and that's their prerogative as a TO. The rules are quite clear, however, that you cannot take more than one relic per character.

The whole Idea of relics is so you can "create your own unique character/fluff, its not op in game terms as a lot of the relics have fair or high points costs anyway and if someone wants to make a badass character they should be allowed. there are no "broken" combos available and quite a few named characters have multiple relics anyway. Also some books dont use the one for one rule you debate like the champions of fenris book. where is it fair sor some books to allow multiple relics and some dont?

"One relic for one weapon"...
As a curious side note, "a relic" and "one relic" both translate in italiana an the same way (so, for us, is even worse to interpretate).
Side note.. aside, I gave a look at another codex since, as someone stated, rules have (should have?) consistency among themselves.
So, I noticed that in GK Codex is written, for relics, "a model can take one", whereas for, say, special issue wargear it is written " a model can take one of each", making quite clear that GKs may not load a single model with all relics.
Then, again for the supposed consistency idea, it is not unreasonable thinking about extending this concept to other codices.

It would seem by book wording that it was intended to be set for 1 relic PER character that has access to them. I know the Ork book simply states that a model may take ONE of the items from the relic list, meaning my Warboss may not take the Lucky Stikk in addition to the Shiny Shoota, or Headwompa (As much as I'd love to try to reroll until I get the ID hit).

Some books may be designed to take multiple on a single model. It's difficult to make the call on this. Especially since most other books seem to set a swap system for relics, when Orks do not. We just take the relic, no need to swap items out.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

But then it's "more than one". Your viewpoint cannot be shown in the rules without the addition of "only".

If you take two items for two weapons, have you complied with the absolutely clear instruction to take one for one?

No.

It's a bit ambiguous in the way is worded, as technically both interpretations are correct in a sense, however as we can see in some of the latest codexes, like Codex: Orks, they intended it to be read as 'you can only have one relic'; that or the writers REALLY hate ork players.

EDIT: Though I will say that I have played it as 'only one' since the release of C: CSM as the first way I interpreted the rule was 'only one'. Everyone else, however, seemed to interpret it the other way.

It's only ambiguous of you treat the permission as having the words "any" or similar in front. As it is, if you have two for two, you cannot explain how that is one for one.

This one has been going since the first codex of 6th. Some codexes strongly imply that it is 1 for 1 with sentences like takes items from the relics list (see Eldar codex) others are more ambiguous (takes items but have multiple lists) and some outright state 1 per model (Orks). GW has never clarified and to be honest we don't know and it is best to discuss with your opponent. Taking multiples certainly doesn't unbalance the game and gives more options but I'm not invested in either side as rarely do you really benefit from having multiples on a character (Orks ironically with their cheap and effective Relics are the best for this and unequivocally can't).

We had a thread about this and it wasn't resolved. IF the TO said that's what it means then that is the rule for that tournament.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

But then it's "more than one". Your viewpoint cannot be shown in the rules without the addition of "only".

If you take two items for two weapons, have you complied with the absolutely clear instruction to take one for one?

Yes. You traded each one for another one. One-for-one. If you asked anyone else outside of this about a 1-to-1 exchange they wouldn't see it as a restrictive "only one time" phrase.

Saying it's "absolutely clear" is a terrible way to argue your point. Obviously from the thread (and others before it) it is not.

Nom you traded two for two. You're still trying to change the definition of the word "one" to "any number I want".

 The World XEater wrote:
This sort of thing comes up every single edition and (more often than not) with every new Codex.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

If you replace two weapons, you haven't replaced one weapon.

If it said "a model can replace any weapon with one of the following" you would be able to argue that the model could take two (provided they had two weapons to trade). One ≠ any, however, so the limit is one per model.

Now if the TO rules that you can take more than one, fair enough and that's their prerogative as a TO. The rules are quite clear, however, that you cannot take more than one relic per character.

I'm Facebook famous!

DoW

But it's not "only" one.

This is my favorite rules argument. So much fun. So much refusal to admit ambiguity.

No individual is arguing that it isn't a one for one swap. The argument is whether or not you can choose multiple times from the Relics list.

The codex gives permission to select items (plural) from the various lists. The ambiguity is whether this means multiple items from each list, one item from each list or multiple from some lists and one from others. GW didn't specify, so this will continue to be a HIWPI issue until there is an FAQ.

My belief is that so long as I can fulfill the one weapon per relic requirement, I can keep choosing from the Relics list. Perhaps this is because I'm primarily a Tau player and a single Commander can take ALL of the "Relics". I believe this sets a RaI precedent as multiple relics are allowed in other, non SW 'Dexes.

Some Codices are ambiguous, some are not.

Astra Militarum, for example, simply says, "Only one of each heirloom may be taken per army." which doesn't seem to specify a limit of one heirloom per character at all.

Grey Knights says the same thing, but adds, "A model can take one of the following:" making the restriction very clear.

If the Codex says "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" it's also very clear that not only is it a one-for-one swap, but that it is limited to a single instance of one-for-one swap.

However, if the Codex says "A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:" then it's not restricting the number of weapons that can be swapped, one-for-one, with relics.

The problem isn't ambiguity, it's inconsistency between Codices and the fact that people can often be arguing for and against completely different wording of the rules.

A very, very simple solution would be for GW to release a FAQ that says "Regardless of the army, only one Relic can ever be taken per model (in addition to any other restrictions listed)."

DoW

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
But it's not "only" one.

And the rules are permissive. Your entire argument is "it doesn't say I can't, so I can". The answer to that can be found in this article.

Centurian 99 wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

So again, please actually provide a rule that says you can replace more than one weapon with a relic.

 Ghaz wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
But it's not "only" one.

And the rules are permissive. Your entire argument is "it doesn't say I can't, so I can". The answer to that can be found in this article.

Centurian 99 wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

So again, please actually provide a rule that says you can replace more than one weapon with a relic.

The codex says I can take items from the relics list. The relics list says taking an item involves exchanging one weapon. There is my permission. The codex gives me explicit permission to select items (plural) from the relics list. The wording on the relics list just tells me how to select AN item. I'll be doing this multiple times, as I have permission to do.

Now, you show me a rule that says I can only select from the relics list once. And I don't want to hear that choosing twice means I'm exchanging two weapons when the book says one. Selecting twice is clearly exchanging one weapon... twice.

 Kriswall wrote:
The codex says I can take items from the relics list.

No it doesn't. Codex Space Wolves (the codex in question) states the following:

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

Nothing there comes close to indicating that a single model can take 'items' from the 'Relics of the Fang' list. The closest you would have is from the individual unit entries like this:

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

Multiple lists, but nothing says you can ignore the restrictions of the individual list. Plus, if it said 'item', you would only be able to take a single item from all the lists that the model was entitled to take items from.

Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

1) "A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:"

2) "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

1) "A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:"

2) "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

I'm not here to debate sentences that aren't actually in the codex. I freely admit that choosing an item from the Relics of the Fang list involves replacing one weapon with "one of the following". I'm not arguing this point and never have. In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one. This is not a problem with my grammar comprehension.

My point is as such. The actual wording in the Wolf Lord entry is "May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists." Using the most commonly accepted definition of and/or to mean "X or Y or Both", it can be seen that the entry is telling me that I can take items (plural) from Melee Weapons OR Ranged Weapons OR Special Issue Wargear OR Relics of the Fang OR Melee and Ranged OR Melee and Special Issue OR Melee and Relics OR Ranged and Special Issue OR Ranged and Relics OR,,, You get the idea. You'll note that one of the ORs is simply Relics of the Fang. So, grammatically, the entry allows me to read it as "May take items from the Relics of the Fang list."

Now, imagine that I am equipping a Wolf Lord.

1. I wish to take an item from the Relics of the Fang list. Cool. I have specific permission to do so per the above. Now let me read the Relics of the Fang list to see how this works. "Only one of each Relic may be taken per army." No issue here. I have yet to take any Relics, so there will be no dupes. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." Cool, I'll replace my Bolt Pistol for The Bite of Fenris.

2. That worked out great. Now to make my Wolf Lord even more amazing. I want to give him the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf. Wait! Can I take more than one Relic per model? Let me check the text of my entry. Yup. Looks like I have specific permission to take items from the Relics of the Fangs list. Awesome, let me re-read the Relics of the Fang List as my memory is a little hazy. "Only one of each Relic may be taken per army." Ok, no issue here. I haven't taken the Fangsword for anyone yet. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." Cool, now what weapons do I have available at this point? I have a chainsword and The Bite of Fenris. Replacing the Bite would be pretty foolish, so I'll replace the chainsword instead. Awesome, now I have The Bite of Fenris and the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf.

3. I'm really enjoying equipping this Wolf Lord! I did notice a cool Helm on the Relics list. Let me see if I can equip it. Can I take another item from the Relics of the Fang List? Well, the Wolf Lord entry gives me specific permission to do so, so I can't see why not. Now, due to severe memory issues, let me again re-read the Relics of the Fang list. "Only one of each Relic may be taken per army." No issue here. I haven't taken the Helm for anyone yet. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." Cool, I have two weapons available at this point... The Bite of Fenris and the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf. But wait! There is little superscript next to the Helm of Durfast. "Does not replace one of the character's weapons." Awesome! I don't have to replace one of my weapons when I take the Helm. My Wolf Lord is a super pimp.

Now, snark aside, I'm using the actual wording in the Wolf Lord entry to tell me how many items I can take from the Relics of the Fang list. It doesn't say I can take AN item. It says I can take items. I'm using the wording in the Relics of the Fang list to tell me how to take AN item. I'm just taking AN item three times. Each time I take AN item from the list, I have to replace one weapon to receive a Relic (except in the instance of the Helm, the Armour or the Stone in which case I don't have to replace one weapon at all).

Now, I will freely admit that the authors may have intended to only allow one Relic per model. If this was the case, they should have written "May take one item from the Relics of the Fang list" as a seperate line item under options. What they actually wrote gives permission to take ITEMS from the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please also note that at no point in the above equipping example did I replace two weapons with anything. In each of the three line items I replaced ONE weapon (except #3 where I was specifically told I didn't have to).

It was my under standing you could take 1 weapon ,the armor , and the helm and wulfen stone possible 4. But can only take bite of fenris or black death or fang sword never more then one of these 3 on Any one character. But multple hq does not allow the same relic to be used twice. Because it says " only one of each relic can be taken per army". never says multiple relics Cannot be taken. Of you want a big pimp wolf lord on a mount for 1/5 your points go ahead it still a 2+ model with a 3++. 4 wound model That can die easy.

Fireraven wrote:
It was my under standing you could take 1 weapon ,the armor , and the helm and wulfen stone possible 4. But can only take bite of fenris or black death or fang sword never more then one of these 3 on Any one character. But multple hq does not allow the same relic to be used twice. Because it says " only one of each relic can be taken per army". never says multiple relics Cannot be taken. Of you want a big pimp wolf lord on a mount for 1/5 your points go ahead it still a 2+ model with a 3++. 4 wound model That can die easy.

We aren't debating tactics here. We're debating whether or not a Wolf Lord can equip multiple Relics.

What is your rules basis for allowing the Helm, the Armour, the Stone and one other weapon Relic on a Wolf Lord, but not two weapons? Both scenarios involve selecting from the Relics of the Fang list multiple times.

Kriswall, I would like to point out that the Ork codex, for Warbosses says "May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, Runts & Squigs, Orky Know-wots and/or Gifts of Gork and Mork lists."

By your reading, one can read that sentence as "May take items from the Gifts of Gork and Mork list." which then specifically states "A model can take one of the following:".

The reason for saying can take items (plural) is simply grammatical. There are multiple lists you can take an item from, and as such, the collective would also be pluralized.

If that is how the Ork codex is worded, then I would argue that any model allowed to take Gifts can take multiples, so long as they select one at a time. The one wording is redundant in this case.

I acknowledge the ambiguity. I interpret it this way. The intention may be otherwise. We won't know until GW Faqs it, which may never happen.

its one for one. There are codices that specifically state a model cannot have more than one relic (looking at you orks >.< By this logic we can infer that they would word it this way for other codices if they so wished it.

you may take weapons from

is different from

you may take A weapon from.

one lets you take more than one. The other limits it to A, or one. The wording as Kriswell provided in quite A humorous way uses the former with absolutely no restrictions save for:
1. May not have more than one type of relic per army
2. Must swap out a weapon for a relic (May trade one weapon for one relic)

you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?


If you play an army limited to one per model I feel for you, but that doesn't mean others are restricted in the same way. (also, Ghaz supplement has no restrictions as the ork dex.)

I'm also reading the wording within the list as only being relevant during the limited instance of selecting AN item from the list. As soon as I choose to take a second item from the same list, a new instance is created and I get to take again.

Perhaps this is because I'm a programmer and approach this process in a very logical and regimented way. I consider taking an item from the list as a sort of subroutine. The replace one item wording is only relevant to the subroutine of taking a Relic. The larger program (Wolf Lord entry) is worded such that I can call the take an item subroutine multiple times. This may not have been GW's intent, but I see no other logical explanation. Short of an FAQ that says "when we said you could take items from the Relics list, we meant you can take one item only", I'll keep reading list creation as a logical process

Also, does the ork dex not state -
A model may take only one of the following?

 Kriswall wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

1) "A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:"

2) "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

I'm not here to debate sentences that aren't actually in the codex. I freely admit that choosing an item from the Relics of the Fang list involves replacing one weapon with "one of the following". I'm not arguing this point and never have. In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one. This is not a problem with my grammar comprehension.

My point is that this sentence:

"A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:"

Means you can take any number of weapons and exchange them for relics (e.g. exchange two weapons for two relics, three weapons for three relics, etc.).

But this sentence:

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" (as seen above in the excerpt from the Codex).

Means you can take a single weapon and exchange it for a single relic. Anywhere else in the book that talks about Relics and the exchanging thereof references that page and that rule. There's literally no way around it.

I really must stress that if you still believe that you can exchange two weapons for two relics, you are misunderstanding how a fairly fundamental aspect of English grammar works. Please don't take offense to this—I have certainly misunderstood plenty of grammar in the past—but I think this is why you are still arguing your point when many other people are not. This misunderstanding is the absolute crux of the matter.

DoW

 raiden wrote:
you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?

Because you're only given permission to trade one dollar for one soda. Not to trade two dollars for two sodas.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one.

So why then is it only the second 'one' that 'clearly means one', rather than both of them?

 raiden wrote:

you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?

This is easily debunked by thinking about parental consequences:

Your parents say, "You can get one soda with one dollar."

You come back with two sodas.

Your parents say, "Why do you have two sodas?"

You say, "You said I could get one soda with one dollar, so I got one... then I got another one for another dollar."

Even before you've finished explaining, you know you're already in trouble.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

1) "A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:"

2) "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

I'm not here to debate sentences that aren't actually in the codex. I freely admit that choosing an item from the Relics of the Fang list involves replacing one weapon with "one of the following". I'm not arguing this point and never have. In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one. This is not a problem with my grammar comprehension.

My point is that this sentence:

"A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:"

Means you can take any number of weapons and exchange them for relics (e.g. exchange two weapons for two relics, three weapons for three relics, etc.).

But this sentence:

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" (as seen above in the excerpt from the Codex).

Means you can take a single weapon and exchange it for a single relic. Anywhere else in the book that talks about Relics and the exchanging thereof references that page and that rule. There's literally no way around it.

I really must stress that if you still believe that you can exchange two weapons for two relics, you are misunderstanding how a fairly fundamental aspect of English grammar works. Please don't take offense to this—I have certainly misunderstood plenty of grammar in the past—but I think this is why you are still arguing your point when many other people are not. This misunderstanding is the absolute crux of the matter.

DoW

I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Except you have yet to show you have permission to choose items from the Relics multiple times.

Your argument appears to be "Can select items from...the relics of fang list", however, grammatically, items must be pluralized as it refers to multiple lists.

Now your argument would hold ground in regards to the Eldar Codex, as that does state "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list." which has the same one weapon for one relic wording.

 DogOfWar wrote:

 raiden wrote:

you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?

This is easily debunked by thinking about parental consequences:

Your parents say, "You can get one soda with one dollar."

You come back with two sodas.

Your parents say, "Why do you have two sodas?"

You say, "You said I could get one soda with one dollar, so I got one... then I got another one for another dollar."

Even before you've finished explaining, you know you're already in trouble.

DoW

Let's call a duck a duck. If this scenario happened, my immediate response would be "because before you told me the price, you said I could pick out multiple sodas". You can't ignore the permission to take items. You're being selective about which rules you look at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Except you have yet to show you have permission to choose items from the Relics multiple times.

Your argument appears to be "Can select items from...the relics of fang list", however, grammatically, items must be pluralized as it refers to multiple lists.

Now your argument would hold ground in regards to the Eldar Codex, as that does state "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list." which has the same one weapon for one relic wording.

I agree that it must be pluralized in this sentence structure. My total confusion is that you are ignoring that it IS pluralized. If the authors wanted to communicate one item only, they could have just written two sentences. They didn't. Now, this may have been intentional to allow multiple items, or it may be unintentional and just sloppy writing. The fact remains that items IS pluralized and the sentence can be read, while adhering to all grammatical rules, as "Can select items from... The Relics of the Fang list."

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Thank you for explaining, that makes much more sense.

I believe you do have to look at the situation et al, however, because that's how 40k tends to function. It's why you can't iteratively select special weapons or heavy weapons (even in previous IG Codices where it didn't expressly forbid it) to have a 10-man squad of guardsmen with 4 Lascannons or 9 Plasma Guns.

The other issue is that you aren't afforded the opportunity to go back and sequence through the selection process a second time. If you were, this would open up all sorts of doors with regards to infinite numbers of Astropaths or Master of Ordnance in AM Company Command Squads:

"May add any of the following:
--------- One Astropath
--------- One Master of Ordnance
--------- One Officer of the Fleet"

So I can select One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... ad infinitum!

I will go as far as to say that I don't believe there has ever been a rule that follows that sort of iterative, sequential logic in Unit Entry selection like that. I understand the rationale behind the programming mindset, but that's just not how this ruleset has ever (or is likely to ever) function. Partly because it makes for silly situations (as in the infinite Astropath fiasco above) and partly because that way of thinking is not normal for the average player. GW doesn't write rules for C++ experts and Java linguists, they write rules in English for average English speakers (or whatever other language). It's an interesting take on the verbiage, however, but I don't think it makes sense in the greater scheme of the game and how the rules have been written, at least for the last 4 editions I've been playing.

DoW

So you go to the Relics of the Fang list, and what does the sentence there say? "May replace one weapon with one of the following". You can't ignore the rules that govern selecting said items

The wording of relic selection is ambiguous enough that we are arguing about it here, but it's not the presence of 'items' that makes it so. As stated, precedent of GW's writing when it comes to item selection, "may replace any weapon with one" allows you to select multiple options while "one weapon" is just that, one; unless you're going to tell me that I can run dual plasma pistol Chaos Lords or similar.

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Thank you for explaining, that makes much more sense.

I believe you do have to look at the situation et al, however, because that's how 40k tends to function. It's why you can't iteratively select special weapons or heavy weapons (even in previous IG Codices where it didn't expressly forbid it) to have a 10-man squad of guardsmen with 4 Lascannons or 9 Plasma Guns.

The other issue is that you aren't afforded the opportunity to go back and sequence through the selection process a second time. If you were, this would open up all sorts of doors with regards to infinite numbers of Astropaths or Master of Ordnance in AM Company Command Squads:

"May add any of the following:
--------- One Astropath
--------- One Master of Ordnance
--------- One Officer of the Fleet"

So I can select One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... ad infinitum!

I will go as far as to say that I don't believe there has ever been a rule that follows that sort of iterative, sequential logic in Unit Entry selection like that. I understand the rationale behind the programming mindset, but that's just not how this ruleset has ever (or is likely to ever) function. Partly because it makes for silly situations (as in the infinite Astropath fiasco above) and partly because that way of thinking is not normal for the average player. GW doesn't write rules for C++ experts and Java linguists, they write rules in English for average English speakers (or whatever other language). It's an interesting take on the verbiage, however, but I don't think it makes sense in the greater scheme of the game and how the rules have been written, at least for the last 4 editions I've been playing.

DoW

Space Marine Bikers come with a Bolt Pistol, but no melee weapon. Per the FAQ an option was added to allow them to swap their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword. Two Bikers may then exchange the melee weapon (Chainsword) for a Special Weapon. The option selection HAS to be sequential, or no biker would be able to take a Special Weapon.

There you go. There is an example of sequential logic in taking options in a unit entry.

Since the guy arguing only take one picture instead of both the sections that is required to make a logical conclusion. Here is the 2nd part. It says very clearly "May take Items" plural.

 Kriswall wrote:
..., at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics

 Kriswall wrote:
..., but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

One of these things doesn't belong...

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Yes, it is. But that's not the issue.

You're given permission to select multiple relics for the army.

A model is given permission to select select one relic, by swapping one weapon.


There is no permission to take more than one relic per model... just per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fireraven wrote:
Since the guy arguing only take one picture instead of both the sections that is required to make a logical conclusion. Here is the 2nd part. It says very clearly "May take Items" plural.

...because if it just said 'an item' you would be restricted to one single item total from all of those lists combined. It's not giving you specific permission to select multiple items from each list... just telling you that selections from any or all of those lists are possible. Any restrictions inherent to those individual lists still have to apply.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
..., at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics

 Kriswall wrote:
..., but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

One of these things doesn't belong...

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Yes, it is. But that's not the issue.

You're given permission to select multiple relics for the army.

A model is given permission to select select one relic, by swapping one weapon.


There is no permission to take more than one relic per model... just per army.

The codex literally tells me in the Wolf Lord entry that I can take items from the Relics list. How is that not permission to take multiple items?

 Kriswall wrote:
The codex literally tells me in the Wolf Lord entry that I can take items from the Relics list. How is that not permission to take multiple items?

No, it doesn't. It gives you permission to select items from a bunch of different lists, including the Relics list.

That doesn't inherently over-ride any restriction specific to any of those lists.

Then it could easily say Items from list a, b, c and one relic which it does not say. But people just look at the lord its actually the same for the priest and others as well. I have never seen someone other then on these furoms argue. It is clearly allowed except no 2 relics that are the same per army. If someone wants to pimp out there lord let them, its one model that gets ninjaed easily. When I see them I go please charge me biggest squad over watch will kill him with enough rolls easy. Before he even does his attacks.

I view it as:

One for one

Not one for two

But if you have two then each one can be swapped for one.

Make sense?

Fireraven wrote:
Then it could easily say Items from list a, b, c and one relic which it does not say.

It could... but it doesn't need to, because it restricts you to one in the Relics list anyway.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fireraven wrote:
I have never seen someone other then on these furoms argue..

For what it's worth, I've seen it debated on the one other forum I frequent these days, and it's been ruled as only one allowed in various large tournaments around and about.

Is the armor, helm or wolven stone a weapon? No, they are not. It does say one weapon not one relic. Unless the armor list that is in a total diffrent section of the codex instantly become a defaco weapon please let me know. Becauae ill happly write in crayon my new wolf lord armor now is a weapon that adds 99 str and Toughness as well as 99 attacks. Since its now a weapon it needs values as well for those stats o ya all my attacks are ap1just in case my rolls are bad.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The codex literally tells me in the Wolf Lord entry that I can take items from the Relics list. How is that not permission to take multiple items?

No, it doesn't. It gives you permission to select items from a bunch of different lists, including the Relics list.

That doesn't inherently over-ride any restriction specific to any of those lists.

I feel like you're using the true Scotsman logical fallacy here, i.e., sure it says items, but that's not a true plural because there are other lists involved. As per the tenets of this forum, the True Scotsman fallacy is not a valid debate technique.

I am following the list specific restrictions each time I select from the list. If I choose to take three items from the Relics list, I should be able to so long as I obey the requirement to replace one weapon each time.

 Kriswall wrote:
I feel like you're using the true Scotsman logical fallacy here, i.e., sure it says items, but that's not a true plural because there are other lists involved.

I'm not saying it's not a 'true' plural. I'm saying that while it gives you permission to select more than one item from those lists, giving you permission to select multiple items from multiple lists does not alow you to ignore a restriction placed on any one of those lists that limits what can be selected from that specific list.

I am following the list specific restrictions each time I select from the list.

No, you're not. Because the list allows you to replace one item for something else. The moment you swap a second item, you have broken the rule that says you can swap one.

Meh. You see it your way, I'll see it mine. We're told we can take items and we're told that taking an item involves replacing one weapon for one Relic. You see one weapon as an absolute limiter. I see it as a per take limiter. Both are potentially correct. We aren't given enough information to confirm one interpretation.

We're never going to agree, but that's ok. In a tournament setting, I would abide by the TO's ruling, which is just a tourney HIWPI. In a casual setting, I wouldn't care, and neither would anyone I regularly play with. If my group wanted well written and unambiguous rules, we'd just play Magic the Gathering.

We're never going to agree, but that's ok. In a tournament setting, I would abide by the TO's ruling, which is just a tourney HIWPI. In a casual setting, I wouldn't care, and neither would anyone I regularly play with. If my group wanted well written and unambiguous rules, we'd just play Magic the Gathering.

In a tournament setting, you would have no choice but to abide by the TO's ruling, so that should go without saying. As for me, I agree with the OP. I don't believe "one" and "any" are synonyms.

I am just as firm with myself when creating my own armies. I've spent more hours than a sane man should rewriting my own lists to make sure not to exceed the agreed upon point limit, only to find that my opponent casually just went a few points over. I KNOW it's not that big of a deal. However I lose my sanity when people refuse to afford me the same amount of consideration as I give to them.

RaW: "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
You only have permission to swap 1 item by this rule.
Then read Note 6.

Old Thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/609767.page

My Conclusions:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
Single model, single "one weapon with one": can't take The Bite with Black Death

Note 6: "Does not replace one of the character's weapons" - ie disregard the second line.
Black Death + Wulfen stone + Helm is perfectly legal as you only have One per army and that is the single requirement.

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaW: "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
You only have permission to swap 1 item by this rule.
Then read Note 6.

Old Thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/609767.page

My Conclusions:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
Single model, single "one weapon with one": can't take The Bite with Black Death

Note 6: "Does not replace one of the character's weapons" - ie disregard the second line.
Black Death + Wulfen stone + Helm is perfectly legal as you only have One per army and that is the single requirement.

This cracks me up.

>Implying your opinion was final and correct in the previous threads.

The previous threads on the subject were locked because no consensus was reached and people were getting snarky about other forum members' grasp of the English language. That's already starting in this thread. Several people have challenged my grasp of basic English grammar when we all know GW writes ambiguous and poorly thought out rules. I simply don't agree with your reading anymore than you agree with mine. Both are potentially valid depending on what GW was intending.

This is definitely one of those topics where you should just come to an agreement within your local gaming group. If the Rules as Written were clear, we wouldn't be into the umpteenth thread on the subject.

MODS, can we lock this thread since it's obviously not going to come to a resolution?

 Kriswall wrote:
>Implying your opinion was final and correct in the previous threads.

Never did assume that a final say was the correct answer... I have posted in many "Loop" Threads before.

Instead, rather than spend time re-iterating my position, the Rules did not change since my last conclusion and it is therefore still applicable.
And IMHO correct, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll put it in RaW full format if it helps:

May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists.

Where the and/or constructs phrases so:
May take items from the Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons and Special Issue Wargear and Relics of the Fang lists.
May take items from the Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons or Special Issue Wargear or Relics of the Fang lists.

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

So, when a model decides to take items from this list, he has to follow this rule. A model > One weapon > one of the following.
Nothing allows you to run through this rule again, as you are assuming. A model (singular) can do 1 thing. Selecting the same model again is still the "A model", and you've done so already.

Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" no longer applies if you also follow Note 6.

A model with A) The Bite of Fenris, Black Death and Fangsword of the Ice Wolf is breaking RaW
A model with B) The Bite of Fenris, Helm of Durfast and The Wulfen Stone is fully legal by RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
>Implying your opinion was final and correct in the previous threads.

Never did assume that a final say was the correct answer... I have posted in many "Loop" Threads before.

Instead, rather than spend time re-iterating my position, the Rules did not change since my last conclusion and it is therefore still applicable.
And IMHO correct, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll put it in RaW full format if it helps:

May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists.

Where the and/or constructs phrases so:
May take items from the Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons and Special Issue Wargear and Relics of the Fang lists.
May take items from the Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons or Special Issue Wargear or Relics of the Fang lists.

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

So, when a model decides to take items from this list, he has to follow this rule. A model > One weapon > one of the following.
Nothing allows you to run through this rule again, as you are assuming. A model (singular) can do 1 thing. Selecting the same model again is still the "A model", and you've done so already.

Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" no longer applies if you also follow Note 6.

A model with A) The Bite of Fenris, Black Death and Fangsword of the Ice Wolf is breaking RaW
A model with B) The Bite of Fenris, Helm of Durfast and The Wulfen Stone is fully legal by RaW.

So how are you taking 3 items if you can't go through the sequence again? How does A model > One weapon > one of the following equal out to a model switching one weapon for 3 relics? By your interpretation of RaW at best you would switch one of your weapons for one of the relics that don't replace a weapon, and then have that one and the weapon you put up for swapping. Or you go against clear RaW by swapping one weapon for 3 relics. Or we are able to go through the process multiple times as long as we follow the one weapon for one relic rule.

I'm also curious to know this. You say nothing allows you to run through this rule again, yet you clearly say I can run through it at least three times.

Which is it? Can I choose from the list multiple times, or can't I?

It's either a model being able to exchange one weapon for one of the following multiple times or a model being able to exchange [one weapon or nothing depending on the relic] for one of the following once. You can't have it both ways. You can't say multiple choices are allowed, but multiple choices aren't allowed in the same post.

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

The underlined is incorrect. If you have 2 relics, and you traded 2 weapons for them, you're by definition arguing that you can trade 2 weapons for 2 relics.
The bolded is incorrect - you're told you can have items from multiple lists. There is no rule that says you may have items from the Relic list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar.

Yes, you are.

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Except you're never given permission to select more than one item from the Relics list.

You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option.

Using Codex: SM (since I don't have the SW book) I select a Bike for my chapter master. I then select Terminator armor. According to your argument this is legal - I'm restricted from choosing a bike if I have Terminator armor, but not the other way around.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

The underlined is incorrect. If you have 2 relics, and you traded 2 weapons for them, you're by definition arguing that you can trade 2 weapons for 2 relics.
The bolded is incorrect - you're told you can have items from multiple lists. There is no rule that says you may have items from the Relic list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar.

Yes, you are.

'Can take items from the A, B, C and/or D lists' can be rewritten as the following 15 sentences using the most commonly accepted meaning of and/or, which is "one, the other, or both".

Can take items from the A list.
Can take items from the B list.
Can take items from the C list.
Can take items from the D list.
Can take items from the A and B lists.
Can take items from the A and C lists.
Can take items from the A and D lists.
Can take items from the B and C lists.
Can take items from the B and D lists.
Can take items from the C and D lists.
Can take items from the A and B and C lists.
Can take items from the A and B and D lists.
Can take items from the A and C and D lists.
Can take items from the B and C and D lists.
Can take items from the A and B and C and D lists.

I am effectively being told that I can take items from the D, or "Relics of the Fang" list. This is a plural, not singular permission. You can argue that RAI is that it be singular, but the actual sentence uses the plural term 'items'.

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Except you're never given permission to select more than one item from the Relics list.

See above.

You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option.

Using Codex: SM (since I don't have the SW book) I select a Bike for my chapter master. I then select Terminator armor. According to your argument this is legal - I'm restricted from choosing a bike if I have Terminator armor, but not the other way around.

I'd have to go back and look at that codex. RAI is pretty obvious, but if there is no restriction for Terminator armoured models to take Bikes (or Jump Packs), then I would argue that it's possible by RAW. I doubt any gaming group would play it that way, but RAW would support it. In much the same way, Independent Characters can't join Monstrous Creatures. But, a Monstrous Creature Independent Character (such as O'vesa) can join other non-MC ICs. The RAI seems to indicate that MCs and ICs can't pal around. The actual RAW allows it to happen so long as the MC is joining the IC and not the other way around.

 Kriswall wrote:
'Can take items from the A, B, C and/or D lists' can be rewritten as the following 15 sentences using the most commonly accepted meaning of and/or, which is "one, the other, or both".

No, it cannot. Your statement means that to take anything, you MUST take multiple from any list you look at. This is demonstrably false.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
'Can take items from the A, B, C and/or D lists' can be rewritten as the following 15 sentences using the most commonly accepted meaning of and/or, which is "one, the other, or both".

No, it cannot. Your statement means that to take anything, you MUST take multiple from any list you look at. This is demonstrably false.

Incorrect.

0 is a number of items.
1 is a number of items.
2 is a number of items.

If I can take items, I can take 0, 1, 2 or more.

How many items would you like to take? Zero. Excellent. Here are your zero items!
How many items would you like to take? One. Excellent. Here is your one item!
How many items would you like to take? ALL OF THE THINGS! Um, you have to give me a number. Then... three? Ok, here are your three items!

 Kriswall wrote:
How many items would you like to take? One. Excellent. Here is your one item!

If you take one item, have you taken plural items from the list?

Also, that's what 'and/or' means. What do you think and/or means? How would you break that sentence into multiple sentences (or one longer sentence)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
How many items would you like to take? One. Excellent. Here is your one item!

If you take one item, have you taken plural items from the list?

Your question isn't relevant. I think you're asking if I've taken 2 or more items. The answer is a resounding no. If you're asking if I've taken items from the list, the answer is a resounding yes.

Being told that I can take items gives me permission to take 0, 1 or more. Taking 1 fulfills my permission, just as taking 0 or 2 would. If it said "you can take two or more items" then I would agree that one isn't an acceptable choice, but there is no such specification.

There is permission to take one relic, some of the relics require you swap a weapon.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
So how are you taking 3 items if you can't go through the sequence again? How does A model > One weapon > one of the following equal out to a model switching one weapon for 3 relics? By your interpretation of RaW at best you would switch one of your weapons for one of the relics that don't replace a weapon, and then have that one and the weapon you put up for swapping. Or you go against clear RaW by swapping one weapon for 3 relics. Or we are able to go through the process multiple times as long as we follow the one weapon for one relic rule.

You never swap one weapon for 3 Relics. You can swap 1 weapon for 1 Relic. You can have some Relics

How do you take a Helm of Durfast on a Space Wolves HQ?
Do you swap out one weapon?
Just the Helm, on its own.

blaktoof wrote:
There is permission to take one relic, some of the relics require you swap a weapon.

The permission in the unit entry actually says items. Show me where in the Unit Entry it says that I may only select once from the Relics list.

When I go to take my items form the Relics list, I am told that I can replace one weapon for one of the items on the list. I already know from the unit entry that I can take potentially multiple items from the list (or zero, or one). So, I know that I can take more than one and I know how taking one occurs.

It seems to me that you are using the wording in the Relics list to override and contradict the wording in the actual unit entry. I'm using the wording in the unit entry to let me know how many I can take and the wording in the Relics list to let me know how to take them.

The unit entry is plural because it specifies multiple lists the model can choose from, the specific entry for the relics is singular.

not sure how you can ignore the specific lists restrictions because the unit entry lists multiple lists you can pick from.

that would be similiar to ignore the footnotes from the lists as they are not in the unit entry, or ignoring the points cost as they are not in the unit, entry, etc.

 Kriswall wrote:
Space Marine Bikers come with a Bolt Pistol, but no melee weapon. Per the FAQ an option was added to allow them to swap their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword. Two Bikers may then exchange the melee weapon (Chainsword) for a Special Weapon. The option selection HAS to be sequential, or no biker would be able to take a Special Weapon.

There you go. There is an example of sequential logic in taking options in a unit entry.

Sequential is not iterative. As a programmer you should know that. My point stands.

DoW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

The permission in the unit entry actually says items. Show me where in the Unit Entry it says that I may only select once from the Relics list.

The part where it says RaW: "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

One means one. You do not have permission to select more than once from the Relics list. If you are iterating the list more than once, then I am also able to take Infinite Astropaths in my AM Command Squad.

The section in the Unit entry indicates you can select from the multiple items in the Relic list, not multiple items.

Am I going crazy? I hate to say it, but this is very straightforward grammar and syntax. In all seriousness, is this a quirk with American English?

DoW

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
There is permission to take one relic, some of the relics require you swap a weapon.

The permission in the unit entry actually says items. Show me where in the Unit Entry it says that I may only select once from the Relics list.

When I go to take my items form the Relics list, I am told that I can replace one weapon for one of the items on the list. I already know from the unit entry that I can take potentially multiple items from the list (or zero, or one). So, I know that I can take more than one and I know how taking one occurs.

It seems to me that you are using the wording in the Relics list to override and contradict the wording in the actual unit entry. I'm using the wording in the unit entry to let me know how many I can take and the wording in the Relics list to let me know how to take them.

Ok, so you are in the Unit Entry, and you decide to select: "The Bite of Fenris, Black Death and Fangsword of the Ice Wolf" or you may decide to select "The Bite of Fenris, Helm of Durfast and The Wulfen Stone"

When you go to take the Items from the Relics list:

The Bite of Fenris
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

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

Fangsword of the Ice Wolf
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

or

The Bite of Fenris
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

Helm of Durfast
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following: Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

The Wulfen Stone
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following: Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

You will notice that doing the first 3, you perform "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" 3 times. Are they 3 different models? As they are not, the Red section cannot be repeated, it is the same model.

If you select the second set of Wargear, how many items have you swapped on the same model?

I don't think this is a grammar issue at all.

The unit entry says I can take items.

The list tells me how to take an item.

If I can take items, I'm clearly selecting from the list multiple times.

Honestly, this feels exactly like trying to explain process flow design to non logical thinkers. I don't think this is a grammar or syntax issue. I think this has more to with the way different people approach and interpret logical processes. I may be overly technical in my approach, but I feel like some people are ignoring the technical elements of the process and going with what they see as 'obviously true'.

The real question is this... does the wording on the Relics list tell me how to take an item from the list, or does it tell me how many items I can take? I think it tells me how to take an item (one for one). I think the unit entry tells me how many I can take... items, i.e., 0+.

 Kriswall wrote:
Honestly, this feels exactly like trying to explain process flow design to non logical thinkers. I don't think this is a grammar or syntax issue. I think this has more to with the way different people approach and interpret logical processes. I may be overly technical in my approach, but I feel like some people are ignoring the technical elements of the process and going with what they see as 'obviously true'.

Then we are in the same boat. It's equally shocking that my explanation of what the sentence says is being lost on several of the people in this thread. I can assure you that the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" does not allow for more than one weapon to be exchanged at all. It's really not a discussion. I'm actually quite surprised that this threat has gone along for as long as it has because I really only encounter these sorts of issues when I'm dealing with much younger players, or those who have English as second language (which are both completely valid reasons for confusion).

The only argument that has any merit at all is the claim that the procedure can be iterated several times to get the result you want. However, that's not how the rules work. This is evident as there are many Unit Entries that, if iteration was allowed, would give the option for a 10 man squad of meltaguns or infinite added models.

As I said before, these rules are written using the basic rules of English syntax and grammar. If someone tried to argue that they could take both items in a rule that said "take one OR the other" because 'OR' isn't the same as 'XOR' (in binary logic) you would say that they were misunderstanding the rule. At least I hope you would.

I completely understand your frustration at not being able to convince people of your position but, rest assured, we are feeling the exact same frustration towards you.

DoW

You have two permissions. You have to satisfy both at the same time

One States you can select items. The othe states for THIs list you may take one item for one weapon.

If you tak two, you cannot demonstrate compliance either the permission to take one. It is impossible to do so

 Kriswall wrote:
The real question is this... does the wording on the Relics list tell me how to take an item from the list, or does it tell me how many items I can take? I think it tells me how to take an item (one for one). I think the unit entry tells me how many I can take... items, i.e., 0+.

It's both. It's a directive - you have to follow it. If you have 2 relics you've traded two weapons for 2 relics. Please demonstrate how that does not violate one for one.

One for one followed by one for one isn't the same as two for two. It's one for one twice. The list only allows me to do a one for one action. The unit entry lets me take multiple actions as relates to the list. I'm never doing a two for two action. I'm doing a one for one... two times.

To be clear... I am not ever exchanging two weapons for two relics. I'm exchanging one weapon for one relic. I am simply doing this more than once. My stance remains that the explicit permission to do this more than once lies in the unit entry telling me I can take items. Each time I take an item, I obviously have to fulfill the requirement of one for one.

Again... at no point in the option selection process am I handing over two weapons, paying a single points cost and receiving two relics. This is never happening. Each time I select an option I am obeying the one for one. Each time I am handing over one weapon, paying a single points cost and receiving one relic.

Yes you are, you're just Easter egging by pretending to do it twice

One for one twice is equivalent to two for two, and is breaking a rule. Don't break rules

I don't know what easter egging means in this context.

One for one twice may have the same net outcome as two for two once, but is not the same thing. One is two option selection actions, the other is one option selection action.

So, its all gone around again, and we're still at the same place. Time to give this I've a rest.