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

Veteran and Command Squads may replace their Bolters with Bolt Pistols and CCW. Does this mean all have to do this, or can some do it and others not?

The Command Squad entry on P.29 of the Space Marine Codex says:

"All models in the squad may replace their bolters with a bolt pistol and close combat weapon at no extra cost."

The modal operator expressed by the term "may" means that between 1 and 10 of them can make the replacement.

Ok, I got confused because it said "All" instead of "Any". Thanks.

I believe that if you could take half BP&CCW and half Bolter, the wording on p.29 would be ANY model.

The sentence on p.29 means that the option to switch bolters for bolt pistols applies to every trooper in the unit if you want.

The real issue here is not in the word may, it is in the use of the word ALL instead of ANY.

Most people I know(and others I don't know but have played against) agree with Skiz0's interpretation and play accordingly. All of your troopers must be bolters or BP&CC.

Were the expression: "Any models in the squad may replace their bolters with a bolt pistol and close combat weapon at no extra cost", then it would mean the same.

SkizO wrote:I believe that if you could take half BP&CCW and half Bolter, the wording on p.29 would be ANY model.

The sentence on p.29 means that the option to switch bolters for bolt pistols applies to every trooper in the unit if you want.

The real issue here is not in the word may, it is in the use of the word ALL instead of ANY.

Thats how ive always played it.

How you have always played it may not reflect the actual rules...

Due to the pluralization of Bolters in the sentence it lends more to the interpretation that the whole squad may do this action or none, not the "any number of the squad members may do this" interpritation that you are stating.

If it was singular each member would have the option.

But since it is plural then the squad as a whole has the option.

That is the difference.

I don't why we have issues like this to be honest.

All models may (plural description) = All models have the opportunity to = Any model may (singular description)

"May" is optional "All" is plural but not necessary a group inclusive.

Look at this way "All children may have a glass of milk" does not equal option 1) All children must hav a glass of milk" or option 2 "No child has a glass of milk". It means that each child in the group can choose to have a glass of milk or not - their choice is not dictated to them by the rest of the group. Common English usage - and I mean English English, not American English.

To say all "all models may replace" does not lead to an either or option for the whole unit. Sometimes we read waaay to much into things.

We have issues like this because people keep making errors in reading comprehension. And if we easily noticed such errors, then we would not make them. Hence when someone makes such an error, an error so basic that we rarely have reason to point it out, pointing it out is a difficult and arduous process.

If it entire squad switched their bolters for a bolt pistol and close combat weapon the entry would say something like:

"The squad may replace their bolters with bolt pistols and close combat weapons."

In the same Army List Entry we have the phrase:

"The squad may be equipped with frag grenades at +1 point per model and/or krak grenades at +2 points per model."

The problem is when you are used to reading logic described in english things like this get fuzzy.

When you say "all" in the sentence you are grouping all of the models into one unit. Then you give the modal operator "may" allowing them the binary choice of having a bolter or BP & CC. So when logic is applied and order of operations is followed, which is expressed in the order you read it in a sentence, you get the below statements which must be true.

- the group of all models = A

- A == Bolters or A == BP && CC



However stating it as:

The squad may replace their bolters with bolt pistols and close combat weapons.
-or-
Any number of models in the unit may replace there bolter with a BP & CC at no cost

Gives you a proper definition without the above issues because people who are used to logic and people who are not will read it in the same way. Really it comes down to poorly written rules, but hey it is GW after all.

This is why violence really does solve everything.

logic...pheh

Or, you know, attention to English grammar and how things are phrased in the same Army List Entry...

You know...
I hate to say it. I really do...

I agree with Nurglitch.


Don't get me wrong. I came into this thread totally in DISAGREEMENT. You (He) convinced me.

I still believe that my initial thought was right in RAI but, per RAW, I'm now convinced that you CAN do half & half.


Eric

(Clarification.... My "hating to say it" stems from the fact that I don't think that's how it's intended.... not anything about you, personally, Nurglitch LOL)