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.

Page 128 of the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines states that "Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, neither or both provided you pay the stated points cost." Does this mean, for example, that a Sergeant who takes a chainsword may choose to replace neither his bolter nor his bolt pistol, and essentially gain CSM "ubergrit?" I know that there haven't been weapon handedness limits for a while now, but this strikes me as a bit off...

Wow. Did you really ask this question.

Space Marines come with Chainsword, Bolter and Bolt Pistol. This makes them Space Marines.

You can replace all or none. It's like Burger King.

Actually, they do not come with a chainswordd (or ccw).

And yes, sounds like they don't have to drop anything to add something. "Where an option states", at least.

Fetterkey wrote:Page 128 of the 5th edition Codex: Space Marines states that "Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, neither or both provided you pay the stated points cost." Does this mean, for example, that a Sergeant who takes a chainsword may choose to replace neither his bolter nor his bolt pistol, and essentially gain CSM "ubergrit?" I know that there haven't been weapon handedness limits for a while now, but this strikes me as a bit off...

You should do a search. This was discussed a while ago.

Basically it goes like this.... a tactical marine seargent comes with a Bolter and bolt pistol (same as all the other Tac marines). You can replace Just his Bolter. Just his Bolt Pistol. both or none (thats were the neither comes in) If you choose Neither then you can't take anything from the upgrades list.

so to get a chainsword the seargent would have to trade up his bolter or bolt pistol or both. but if he chooses to trade up neither then he doesn't get to pick from the upgrade list....gaining nothing.

I'm having a hard time searching for that thread in question, so I'll back up mrdabba here and reiterate:

The key here is the word REPLACE. You have a choice to replace either, neither or both but whatever you choose you still have to REPLACE a weapon to do so.


So if you choose neither, then you have just chosen to replace none of the weapons and you have essentially *not* upgraded the model.

Army List Entries
"Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, neither or both provided you pay the stated points cost."

The Wargear
Bolter
Bolt Pistol

The Options
"The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol with:"
-a Chainsword...Xpts
-a Plasma Pistol...Ypts

The Possible Wargear that May Result
1. Bolter and Bolt Pistol (Neither)...+0pts
2. Bolter and Chainsword (Either)...+Xpts
3. Chainsword and Bolt Pistol (Either)...+Xpts
4. Bolter and Plasma Pistol (Either)...+Ypts
5. Plasma Pistol and Bolt Pistol (Either)...+Ypts
6. Plasma Pistol and Chainsword (Both)...+X+Ypts
7. Plasma Pistol and Plasma Pistol (Both)...2Ypts
8. Chainsword and Chainsword (Both)...2Xpts

Basically the word "neither" is not needed in that sentence and apparently just confuses a lot of people.

Webbe wrote:Basically the word "neither" is not needed in that sentence and apparently just confuses a lot of people.

GW really needs to hire a Editor with a background in Grammar and Composition.

Webbe wrote:Basically the word "neither" is not needed in that sentence and apparently just confuses a lot of people.

And then you'd have people claiming that you would be forced to upgrade your weapons. The sentence is fine as it is. It's the people who think that you get something for nothing, that's the problem.

Not really Ghaz. If the word "neither" is intended to mean that upgrading is not required, then it can be made explicit with a sentence like, "Models are not required to cohhse any optional upgrades, however, if a model upgrades its weapons, then the model may replace either or both of the weapons listed as basic equipment." Or something similar. The problem of ambiguity is not insurmountable. GW just needs to assign the wording to a group to massage. Paying them money would probably not be necessary.

The only problem with the way the sentence is written is that GW assumed we all knew what the word replace means, and apparently some of us don't.

JCarter wrote:The problem of ambiguity is not insurmountable. GW just needs to assign the wording to a group to massage. Paying them money would probably not be necessary.

Instead of money you're going to offer them massages? I guess thats a novel form of incentive... or did you not manage to surmount the problem of abiguity in that message?

JCarter wrote:Not really Ghaz.

Yes, really. Matter of fact, I've already seen that argument before.

Ghaz is quite correct.
The wishfull thinking crowd will always try and find loopholes.

I think just the word "may" would be enough to ensure people didn't HAVE to upgrade.

"may upgrade either or both to the following"

Spellbound wrote:I think just the word "may" would be enough to ensure people didn't HAVE to upgrade.

"may upgrade either or both to the following"

I think 90% of us (if not more) would agree with you, but sometimes 'may' is used to indicate only the things you are allowed do. In other words, you would *have* to choose one or the other. The truth is, no matter how something is written, there will be some people who are confused by it.

Yep. Isn't the English language wonderfully vague.

The fact that some people will always be confused by a piece of writing doesn't mean that English is vague. It means that said people have weak literacy skills. I'm pretty sure it says "For Players 12 and up" on the box for that reason...

Yes, English can indeed be a vague language compared to some others like German.

Edited by modquisition to keep the thread on track

Edit by original poster to address Ghaz:

No, English is not more vague than German. Vague-ness is not a property of languages, it is a property of how languages are used. If a sentence appears vague, we have three options for why that may seem to be the case:

1. The sentence is vague. This is pretty simple. All languages have the capacity for constructing vague sentences, some moreso than others due to a paucity of expressive development or vocabulary. For this reason formal languages often have a simplified grammar and vocabulary in order to aid in the construction of well formed sentences.

2. The reader has not read the sentence correctly, thereby reading vague-ness into the sentence that was not there originally. This is also pretty simple. Everyone has the capacity to misread sentences, particularly if the sentence structure is complex, or it is read out of context, or the reader has not applied his/her literacy skills well.

3. The subject matter of the sentence is vague. This is somewhat more complicated because some subjects are not themselves clear, and this lack of clarity of subject can be confused with the clarity of expression.

We can rule out #3, because the subject matter of the equipment options for a model in Warhammer 40k is well-defined: they either have the wargear or they do not, and the replacement of wargear is distinct from the addition of wargear.

We can also rule out #1, because the sentences in question are grammatically well-formed, and describe precisely the logical relation expressed by the English construction 'and/or'.

Therefore, where the sentences in question are perceived to be somehow vague or unclear, the problem lies with some defect of the reader's comprehension.

If you feel personally insulted by having this pointed out, because you have not easily and immediately apprehended the meaning of the sentences in question, and feel that this must be a fault of either the expressions or their subject matter because you are a smart cookie and that obviously your opinion must be correct as a result, you are also wrong to feel personally insulted.

The fact is that people make mistakes. Often very smart people make mistakes. Making mistakes does not make you a bad person. It does not make you a stupid person. It just means that you have made a mistake. There is nothing wrong with making a mistake (or correcting someone who mistakenly attributes a mistake to you), though it is wrong to take the correction of such a mistake as an attack.

Similarly pointing out a mistake is not always a personal attack on a person. In fact, it is rarely a personal attack on a person, since it addresses a specific mistake, rather than a propensity or willingness of that person to make mistakes. In general it is what is called "constructive criticism", criticism offered in the spirit of helping someone make a correction, rather than ad hominem, criticism offered in the spirit of attacking a person's social standing and credibility.

In fact, given that this is an Internet forum where people do not know each other personally, come from a variety of backgrounds, and express themselves in a variety of ways, it is a testament to the clarity and the power of expression inherent in the English language that it allows us to communicate at all.

Edited by modquisition to keep the thread on track

Edited by modquisition to keep the thread on track

Modquisiiton on:

Posts have been edited to keep the thread on track. Please review your posts before posting to insure they could not be construed, intentionally or unintentionally, as personal attacks.

Modquisiiton off.