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.

 Dracos wrote:
I completely disagree. That is something you are inferring. The statement is completely neutral on the topic of taking multiple of the same items. It makes no reference one way or the other.

Therefore we go with the default of how it works in English: if something says "you may take up to X of the following" you can take something twice.

And, again, this is why some of these lists explicitly say "one of each". If what you were saying is correct then there would be no need to make an explicit statement.

On one hand, we've had two codexes that specifically prevented this outcome from happening, thus the lack of any language detailing what we can and can't take leaves a pretty clear message on one end. It would also be very nice to thoroughly
customize our suits to be response teams to exactly what we need. Full on fusion blasters for your heavy hunters, full on plasma for your anti-meq, missile spam for aerial vehicles, I honestly want to try out burst spam too, that'd be awesome.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, again, this is why some of these lists explicitly say "one of each". If what you were saying is correct then there would be no need to make an explicit statement.

DA a Dex says that but SM, doesn't! Also 'up to three' in Tau book is the total number of items, and has nothing to do how many times the same item can be chosen.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dracos wrote:
I completely disagree. That is something you are inferring. The statement is completely neutral on the topic of taking multiple of the same items. It makes no reference one way or the other.

Therefore we go with the default of how it works in English: if something says "you may take up to X of the following" you can take something twice.

And, again, this is why some of these lists explicitly say "one of each". If what you were saying is correct then there would be no need to make an explicit statement.

Personally I'm just wondering how many times Peregrine is going to have to repeat his completely sound logic in the face of random opinions. I now know why he has 4000 posts, he doesn't give up like I would. Personally I don't think it's RAI to have multiple copies of guns, but it's definitely RAW. There is nothing stating that you can't take 3 (or on a commander 4) of the same weapons. The RAI argument however is not really worth getting into, GW has on multiple occasions done things that don't make RAI sense.

Voodoo, the problem is in "theres nothing disallowing it"

We have a permissive ruleset. That means we are allowed to move our models, to shoot and kill our opponents models.

There has to be something allowing it, rather than a lack of something disallowing it.

Now, here's my take:

If there is no restriction on duplication and I have permission to take multiple items from that list, then I may take duplicates. As there is no such restriction, I may take duplicates given permission.


The problem again is permission. The rules don't say I Can't is never a sound argument with permission.

There's two sides to this debate. Side one says there's nothing that details any sort of rules about what you can choose out of the list, except that you can choose up to three items. That's it. GW knew what they were doing when they restricted it the last two, they know what they're doing when they didn't on this one.

The other side says GW must have forgotten to print it, how could they allow this? The thing about this is that this Tau codex supersedes all other rules sources. So your complaints about taking 150 auxiliary grenade launchers or whatever else you want to cram in there is pretty much pointless. The codex says take three, the codex doesn't place any restrictions on what you take. Until GW releases a FAQ and addresses this, the RAW are perfectly clear, take three, nothing else said. Your RAI or whatever else you call these examples really are pointless.

Anbutou wrote:
The other side says GW must have forgotten to print it, how could they allow this?

This is exactly it. The "no two weapons" side's argument pretty much comes down to "it worked this way in the last codex, therefore it must work this way in the current codex". If Tau were a brand new army without obsolete assumptions to get in the way we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

This is exactly it. The "no two weapons" side's argument pretty much comes down to "it worked this way in the last codex, therefore it must work this way in the current codex". If Tau were a brand new army without obsolete assumptions to get in the way we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's not true. I did not even remember what the old book said before I was reminded in this thread. I merely think that when they write that this is the price for two weapons, it is the price they meant to be used when buying two weapons. This is certainly the way most people without prior knowledge of the rules would parse that paragraph.

I'm not sure that reducing people's opinions like that serves any purpose but to try and build some sort of authoritative position.

Its fine that you read it that way - I've explained quite clearly why i don't agree.

Disagreeing or agreeing with anyone is fair, but there is no need to employ such tactics. I don't think there is a single person who said "it worked this way in the last codex" - or even anything close to that.

 Dracos wrote:
I don't think there is a single person who said "it worked this way in the last codex" - or even anything close to that.

It isn't necessarily an explicit argument, but the fact that you couldn't do it in the previous codex is what started the whole controversy. Since it was something that was previously banned and there's no explicit statement saying that things changed it stands out to some people as "exploiting RAW over RAI" since clearly GW intended it to continue working the way it used to work. And then they start looking at other interpretations that are more in line with what they expect it to say, and find the "ambiguity" in the statement.

If, instead, there was no previous Tau codex then most people would probably not see any problem at all with taking two single weapons of the same type.

Don't make me quote your previous statement on this same page, you reduced everyone's argument who disagrees with you in this thread to that.

 Dracos wrote:
Don't make me quote your previous statement on this same page, you reduced everyone's argument who disagrees with you in this thread to that.

I said it pretty much comes down to that, not that there's absolutely no other disagreement. There's argument about supposed "ambiguity" in the statement, but we wouldn't be having this conversation if there wasn't an older version of the rule giving the impression that taking two copies of the same weapon is somehow "unfair" or "not intended". Without the memory of the old rule to give you the idea that there could be anything wrong with taking two single weapons there is nothing at all in the current rule that would suggest that it works that way.

And in that, you're wrong.

You don't get it, I want it to work this way. I want to build my 2x missile pod/intercepter crisis suits, and a 2x fusion blaster bodyguard for shadowsun.

But, I have to be able to point where in the rules this is permitted. There is literally no where in the rules that is explicitly telling you you can take 2 of the same weapon. The rationale you are using is an inference at best. To me, the inference required is not sufficient to give permission to do so.

"Pretty much comes down to" is a reduction of someone's argument, which you've done to attribute an absurd claim to those who disagree with you.

Certainly, some people have been influenced in their reading. But you don't know who and to what extent - its pretty much an ad hominem to attribute that statement or thought process to anyone when you have no insight into their thought process.

 Dracos wrote:
There is literally no where in the rules that is explicitly telling you you can take 2 of the same weapon.

You can take up to three items from that list. This is plain English, when you say "up to X from this list" you are including duplicate choices by default. That's why some similar lists explicitly say "no duplicates", if they didn't say it explicitly then you could take duplicate choices.

Also, did you know that there's no explicit statement that you can take multiple copies of the same unit in your army? If you think that crisis suits with two plasma rifles are illegal then you'd better not be bringing two units of fire warriors.

"Pretty much comes down to" is a reduction of someone's argument, which you've done to attribute an absurd claim to those who disagree with you.

It's not absurd at all. Right from the beginning this discussion has been framed as a question of whether or not the rule has changed. In fact, it would be absurd to suggest that "it worked like that in the last codex" isn't having an impact.

Certainly, some people have been influenced in their reading. But you don't know who and to what extent - its pretty much an ad hominem to attribute that statement or thought process to anyone when you have no insight into their thought process.

You might want to go re-read what an ad hominem is before accusing me of one.

 Dracos wrote:
And in that, you're wrong.

You don't get it, I want it to work this way. I want to build my 2x missile pod/intercepter crisis suits, and a 2x fusion blaster bodyguard for shadowsun.

But, I have to be able to point where in the rules this is permitted. There is literally no where in the rules that is explicitly telling you you can take 2 of the same weapon. The rationale you are using is an inference at best. To me, the inference required is not sufficient to give permission to do so.

The permission is explicit in the wording for the various crisis suit entries (commander, bodyguard and crisis teams) where it says you can take either 3 or 4 items from the ranged weapons list, depending on unit type. A single weapon is 1 item. You are permitted to take 3 or 4 of them.

Also its nice to see that my fruit stand analogy struck such a chord

I've used the term ad hominem correctly. You've attempted to solidify your argument by subtly attaching an absurd belief (that the previous codex rules have any relevance) to all who oppose your opinion.

The absurd claim is that someone actually is arguing that the previous codex has relevance. And you certainly did do that.

Again, the entire basis of our different readings is that we disagree "plain English" contains within it an implication that when offered a list of items and given the option to take more than one, you may select the same option multiple times.

I do not find it implied, while you do.

Do you have an authoritative source which supports your claim?

The most compelling argument so far is actually bringing up the ability to select the same codex unit entry multiple times - I can't find permission to do that anywhere (admittedly I didn't look that hard). Given that, I now have a good reason to infer that you may select the same item multiple times. Thank you.

 Dracos wrote:
I've used the term ad hominem correctly. You've attempted to solidify your argument by subtly attaching an absurd belief (that the previous codex rules have any relevance) to all who oppose your opinion.

No, you've used it incorrectly. Even if it was an absurd claim (which it isn't) it would be a straw man, not an ad hominem.

Do you have an authoritative source which supports your claim?

No, because it's just basic English. In every context outside of 40k if you have a list/collection/etc of items and someone says "take up to X" you can take the same thing twice. If you go to a restaurant and your meal comes with three side dishes from a list it's entirely reasonable to say "bread and double corn" (and if anyone disagrees, it's because they think it's bad manners, not forbidden). If a game store is having a two for $10 sale on used games then you can get two copies of the same game (one for you, one for your friend). Etc. The only time you can't is when there's a rule saying that you can't have duplicates.

Its nice that you have local conventions, but keep in mind that not everyone lives in the area you live, and there is such a thing as different conventions with regards to language.

If you want to discuss further what makes what you said an ad hominem, send me a private message. I'll help you out.

 Dracos wrote:
Its nice that you have local conventions, but keep in mind that not everyone lives in the area you live, and there is such a thing is a different conventions with regards to language.

If there are any conventions GW follows the same ones that I do.

When you can choose "up to X" units from each FOC section you can choose multiple copies of the same unit, and GW feels that this is perfectly clear and specifically granting permission to do so would be redundant.

When you can choose from a list of options and you are limited to one copy of each option GW explicitly says "only one of each", and considers this a necessary statement to make rather than a convenient (and redundant) reminder of something you should already know.

The only "problem" here is the assumption that the Tau list has a "no duplicates" rule and GW's failure to explicitly state one is an accident rather than a deliberate choice.

I can't speak for anyone else (and you should probably stop doing so as well), but my only issue was that the convention you have described was not known to me (the menu example would prompt a clarifying question from anyone I eat with - not an assumption) and didn't find it was being used commonly by GW until you pointed out where else they use it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

This is exactly it. The "no two weapons" side's argument pretty much comes down to "it worked this way in the last codex, therefore it must work this way in the current codex". If Tau were a brand new army without obsolete assumptions to get in the way we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's not true. I did not even remember what the old book said before I was reminded in this thread. I merely think that when they write that this is the price for two weapons, it is the price they meant to be used when buying two weapons. This is certainly the way most people without prior knowledge of the rules would parse that paragraph.

They didn't write the price for two weapons.... Here's the rule. Again.

Where a weapon has two points costs, the first is for
a standard, single version, and the second is for two
weapons (counting as a twin-linked weapon of that type) .
A twin-linked weapon counts as two choices from this list.

I'll clarify, and hopefully this will be the last time I have to post this thing. This rule talks about one specific circumstance. The circumstance is when you choose to utilize a twin-linked weapon system. It doesn't say that every two weapons is twin linked, it says that if you choose to twin link an item, you pay the second point cost, and it's two choices, and represented by two items. In the absence of rules against it in the permissive ruleset which we operate in what's the confusion? I understand the desire to see GW address this, but to say that it's something you can't do when they give you three choices and say nothing else about it... Who's speaking for who?

 Peregrine wrote:

When you can choose from a list of options and you are limited to one copy of each option GW explicitly says "only one of each", and considers this a necessary statement to make rather than a convenient (and redundant) reminder of something you should already know.

Except this is not true. Space marine captain is probably not intended to be able to take multiple aux grenades, nor their tanks be able to take multiple HK missiles. Yet, there is no 'only one of each' anywhere.
Wolf Lords can take 'up to two' fenrisian wolves. It does not say you can take only one of other pieces of wargear (granted they'd do nothing if you could); here it is assumed to be the standard position that you can take only one unless specifically told otherwise.

Now, I'm not actually arguing that this definitely proves that you cannot take multiples of the same item in Tau codex, merely that there is not a consistent policy in GW writing that would let you infer it either way. Considering that it is clearly intended that you can take multiples of the same drone, I'd say it is safe to assume that you can take multiples of the same weapon too. Except that there is specific rule concerning taking two of the same weapons that you have to follow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anbutou wrote:
and the second is for two
weapons

So this is not telling you what price to use when buying two weapons?

I'll clarify, and hopefully this will be the last time I have to post this thing. This rule talks about one specific circumstance. The circumstance is when you choose to utilize a twin-linked weapon system.

Not true. It talks about buying one or two weapons. That is the sircumstance the rule covers. Thing about twin-linking is an addition in parenthesis, and does not alter the meaning of the sentence when it comes to buying these weapons.

It doesn't say that every two weapons is twin linked, it says that if you choose to twin link an item, you pay the second point cost, and it's two choices, and represented by two items. In the absence of rules against it in the permissive ruleset which we operate in what's the confusion? I understand the desire to see GW address this, but to say that it's something you can't do when they give you three choices and say nothing else about it... Who's speaking for who?

It tells you how to buy two weapons. You have a general rule (buy three weapons), and specific clarification (here's how you buy two weapons.) When in that specific situations (buying two weapons) you have to use the rules for that situation. You cannot just ignore it if you don't like it.

The rule is to state that a suit has two of the same weapon on the one suit I.e. a flamer on each arm or a plasma or a etc. NOT a TL on each arm.

 Crimson wrote:
Except this is not true. Space marine captain is probably not intended to be able to take multiple aux grenades, nor their tanks be able to take multiple HK missiles. Yet, there is no 'only one of each' anywhere.

The "one of each" is that each bullet point is a single "take or not take" decision. You can't go back and make the yes/no choice multiple times.

Except that there is specific rule concerning taking two of the same weapons that you have to follow.

The specific rule does NOT say that you MUST take two weapons in that way, it just says that IF you take two weapons using the cheaper option they are twin-linked. Please stop claiming that there is any "must" statement in the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

The "one of each" is that each bullet point is a single "take or not take" decision. You can't go back and make the yes/no choice multiple times.

Just like each Tau weapon is separate bullet point you can take or not (until you've got up to three you're allowed.)

The specific rule does NOT say that you MUST take two weapons in that way, it just says that IF you take two weapons using the cheaper option they are twin-linked. Please stop claiming that there is any "must" statement in the rules.

When you may purchase plasma pistol for 15 points, it does not mean it you can purchase it at any other point cost. You can either purchase it or not; those are the choices. When the codex gives you a point cost for a thing (two weapons), that's the point cost you have to use when buying that thing (two weapons.)

 Crimson wrote:
Just like each Tau weapon is separate bullet point you can take or not (until you've got up to three you're allowed.)

No it isn't. The bullet points in the army list and the items in the upgrade list are formatted entirely differently. One is a list of yes/no questions, one is a menu of choices that you can take up to X items from.

When the codex gives you a point cost for a thing (two weapons), that's the point cost you have to use when buying that thing (two weapons.)

Exactly. If you are buying two weapons you pay the cheaper price and get a twin-linked weapon that takes up two of your choices. What you keep missing is the fact that there is absolutely nothing preventing you from taking one weapon, and then taking one weapon again.

After 8 pages, how about just waiting for FAQ and play it as your local group/friends/TO rules it?

It's not game breaking in either case.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

When you can choose from a list of options and you are limited to one copy of each option GW explicitly says "only one of each", and considers this a necessary statement to make rather than a convenient (and redundant) reminder of something you should already know.

Except this is not true. Space marine captain is probably not intended to be able to take multiple aux grenades, nor their tanks be able to take multiple HK missiles. Yet, there is no 'only one of each' anywhere.
Wolf Lords can take 'up to two' fenrisian wolves. It does not say you can take only one of other pieces of wargear (granted they'd do nothing if you could); here it is assumed to be the standard position that you can take only one unless specifically told otherwise.

Now, I'm not actually arguing that this definitely proves that you cannot take multiples of the same item in Tau codex, merely that there is not a consistent policy in GW writing that would let you infer it either way. Considering that it is clearly intended that you can take multiples of the same drone, I'd say it is safe to assume that you can take multiples of the same weapon too. Except that there is specific rule concerning taking two of the same weapons that you have to follow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Anbutou wrote:
and the second is for two
weapons

So this is not telling you what price to use when buying two weapons?

I'll clarify, and hopefully this will be the last time I have to post this thing. This rule talks about one specific circumstance. The circumstance is when you choose to utilize a twin-linked weapon system.

Not true. It talks about buying one or two weapons. That is the sircumstance the rule covers. Thing about twin-linking is an addition in parenthesis, and does not alter the meaning of the sentence when it comes to buying these weapons.

It doesn't say that every two weapons is twin linked, it says that if you choose to twin link an item, you pay the second point cost, and it's two choices, and represented by two items. In the absence of rules against it in the permissive ruleset which we operate in what's the confusion? I understand the desire to see GW address this, but to say that it's something you can't do when they give you three choices and say nothing else about it... Who's speaking for who?

It tells you how to buy two weapons. You have a general rule (buy three weapons), and specific clarification (here's how you buy two weapons.) When in that specific situations (buying two weapons) you have to use the rules for that situation. You cannot just ignore it if you don't like it.

You're RAI'ing the heck out of this. There's logic in play here too. You can utilize two different points costs. There's a choice, The first points cost is for a single item, the second is for a twin linked item which must be represented by two weapon models in order to be legal on the table. You have three choices, and you aren't restricted in ANY WAY from choosing the first value multiple times. It doesn't say that if a weapon is chosen twice utilize the second point value and it's twin linked. It says that the second cost is for two weapons that counts as twin linked. That's it. It doesn't talk about buying one or two weapons anywhere in there. Did you read the preface? It talks about points costs. Utilizing one points cost gets you weapon A at it's normal profile. Utilizing the second points cost gets you weapon A - Twin linked which must be represented by two of the weapon models, and utilizes two of your choices.

By your logic I can pretty much take any rule in the game, exclude the first part of the rule and then play with that brand new definition. ATSKNF now doesn't specify space marines! Ha! I mean, that's pretty much what I'm reading here.

 Peregrine wrote:

No it isn't. The bullet points in the army list and the items in the upgrade list are formatted entirely differently. One is a list of yes/no questions, one is a menu of choices that you can take up to X items from.

The only difference in formatting is because some codices use armoury type of formatting and some don't. There is no inherent difference that would alter their function. Now I'm not saying that this actually should limit how you can buy Tau weapons, merely that the consistency and clarity you imagine is not actually there.

Exactly. If you are buying two weapons you pay the cheaper price and get a twin-linked weapon that takes up two of your choices. What you keep missing is the fact that there is absolutely nothing preventing you from taking one weapon, and then taking one weapon again.

And then you are taking two weapons! (1+1=2, check from a math professor if you don't believe me.) You are trying to weasel from using a rule provided for specific situation pretending that if you buy first one weapon, and then second, you are not buying two weapons. Are you similarly ignoring all other further instructions that may be in armories? Oh, the Chaos Lord entry said I can have artefacts, so I just ignore this pesky clarification concerning the specific situation of buying this axe that I need to have a Mark of Khorne!

Yes, you can have three weapons, and then the weapon entry further specifies the procedure of buying two of the same weapon. And that's the way you have to do it. It is not a suggestion, it is a rule.

If you can't take two of the same weapon then why can you twin linking them now?