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.

I am trying to outfit my captain and the options section says "replace bolt pistol and/or chainsword". WTF does this mean? Do I get two options from this section, do I decide what I get rid of, or is the answer some third option I have not considered?

The definition of and/or from dictionary.com should help your confusion.

nevermind- figured it out, thanks

The ordinary "and/or" usually translates to the logical OR.
The ordinary "or" then translates to XOR ("exclusive OR", more understandable would be "either... or".

Propositional calculus
False XOR False => False
False XOR True => True
True XOR False => True
True XOR True => False

False OR False => False
False OR True => True
True OR False => True
True OR True => True (the tiny difference)

So, when is the exchange allowed?
no_chainsword OR no_boltpistol => not_allowed
no_chainsword OR boltpistol => allowed
chainsword OR no_boltpistol => allowed
chainsword OR boltpistol => allowed

So, to the OP: You might even exchange both the boltpistol and the chainsword for a single lightning claw. Not that this would make sense (keeping the pistol would be more useful), but it is possible.

I hope I managed to make a rather simple problem look quite ugly with that.^^ Now I'll go back to work and think about building an OR with only XOR, NOT and AND, because the other way round is easy ((a xor b) = ((a or b) and (not (a and b))))...

Bye,
Tierlieb
*who gets to use this beautiful stuff at least once per month*

Tierlieb wrote:The ordinary "and/or" usually translates to the logical OR.
The ordinary "or" then translates to XOR ("exclusive OR", more understandable would be "either... or".

Propositional calculus
False XOR False => False
False XOR True => True
True XOR False => True
True XOR True => False

False OR False => False
False OR True => True
True OR False => True
True OR True => True (the tiny difference)

So, when is the exchange allowed?
no_chainsword OR no_boltpistol => not_allowed
no_chainsword OR boltpistol => allowed
chainsword OR no_boltpistol => allowed
chainsword OR boltpistol => allowed

So, to the OP: You might even exchange both the boltpistol and the chainsword for a single lightning claw. Not that this would make sense (keeping the pistol would be more useful), but it is possible.

I hope I managed to make a rather simple problem look quite ugly with that.^^ Now I'll go back to work and think about building an OR with only XOR, NOT and AND, because the other way round is easy ((a xor b) = ((a or b) and (not (a and b))))...

Bye,
Tierlieb
*who gets to use this beautiful stuff at least once per month*

QFT

Tierlieb wrote:The ordinary "and/or" usually translates to the logical OR.
The ordinary "or" then translates to XOR ("exclusive OR", more understandable would be "either... or".

Propositional calculus
False XOR False => False
False XOR True => True
True XOR False => True
True XOR True => False

False OR False => False
False OR True => True
True OR False => True
True OR True => True (the tiny difference)

So, when is the exchange allowed?
no_chainsword OR no_boltpistol => not_allowed
no_chainsword OR boltpistol => allowed
chainsword OR no_boltpistol => allowed
chainsword OR boltpistol => allowed

So, to the OP: You might even exchange both the boltpistol and the chainsword for a single lightning claw. Not that this would make sense (keeping the pistol would be more useful), but it is possible.

I hope I managed to make a rather simple problem look quite ugly with that.^^ Now I'll go back to work and think about building an OR with only XOR, NOT and AND, because the other way round is easy ((a xor b) = ((a or b) and (not (a and b))))...

Bye,
Tierlieb
*who gets to use this beautiful stuff at least once per month*

Ignoring how little relevance this would be to the majority of people, it is actually not quite an accurate representation of what the phrase means, which is spelled out in the codex. What is explained is that, each weapon may be traded for a single other weapon in the list, however, you have the choice to do so with neither weapon, either weapon, or both weapons.

Doesn't this permit the captain to get 2 LCs or 2 PFs so that an extra attack may be gained?

Homer

Drunkspleen wrote:
Ignoring how little relevance this would be to the majority of people, it is actually not quite an accurate representation of what the phrase means, which is spelled out in the codex. What is explained is that, each weapon may be traded for a single other weapon in the list, however, you have the choice to do so with neither weapon, either weapon, or both weapons.

As I explained ;-)

Homer S wrote:Doesn't this permit the captain to get 2 LCs or 2 PFs so that an extra attack may be gained?

Obviously. It's just pretty expensive.