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'm so totally going to make a mini dualie-ing two bolters or storm bolters just because it would look cool. He's also going to be holding them sideways ghetto cap-in-your-ass style.

Ghaz wrote:Sorry, but once again you're not showing any instance where it says you may add a weapon.

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 cost.

So you're exchanging a weapon for another, not adding one. And you may replace either, neither or both weapons with the weapon that you're exchanging it for. There's nothing about 'adding' weapons.

What does the word "neither" mean to you? Because it obviously means something different to you than it does to me.

Edit:

To try and explain further, let's say I want my Captain/Chapter Master to take a Storm Bolter. I can exchange :

1) Either of my bolt pistol or chainsword
2) Both of my bolt pistol and chainsword
3) Neither of my bolt pistol and chainsword

If (3) is not an option, why is word neither even included in that statement?

Viperion

And yet again, the word 'neither' does not mean 'add'. Yet you seem to think it does. All the word 'neither' does in this passage is make it where you're not required to 'exchange' a weapon. It does not mean that you can add a weapon. You're so fixated on the word 'neither' that you're ignoring the rest of the sentence. You can choose to 'exchange' neither weapon, but it does not give you permission to add one.

If you don't give up a weapon, you have NOT made an exchange.

Viperion wrote:

To try and explain further, let's say I want my Captain/Chapter Master to take a Storm Bolter. I can exchange :

1) Either of my bolt pistol or chainsword
2) Both of my bolt pistol and chainsword
3) Neither of my bolt pistol and chainsword

If (3) is not an option, why is word neither even included in that statement?

GW is an english company. Their books are written in english. In english, the word 'exchange' is defined as follows (courtesy of dictionary.com):

exchange
–verb (used with object)
1. to give up (something) for something else; part with for some equivalent; change for another.

Look at all the way the list is written. There are several ways that options are list

If you were supposed to be able to get a storm bolter without giving up one of your other weapons, it would say "Take" instead of "Replace"

You can TAKE hellfire rounds, meltabombs, digital weapons, etc... without giving up another item
To get the storm bolter you must REPLACE an item.

Nurglitch wrote:Count Bonchula is correct.

The only thing 'slowed' about this 'loophole' is believing it exists.

Quoted for truth.

And if I am quoting Nurglitch, who I almost always disagree with (no offense here, we just see things differently), then the OP... well, I won't continue that thought in fear of the ban-stick.

i think what hes getting at (whlie i dont agree with him on this) is if you choose to EXCHANGE neither just as long as you pay the points cost for the weapons. giving you the option to get rid of the bolt pistol and ccw if you want too, and if you dont then they are equiped on the model along with any weapons that you pay the stated point cost for. again as people have stated no one in my gaming area would play you if you did that. the whole thing with 5th edition is to get rid of tooled out characters by puttting restrictions on what they can take and only allowing them to take certain things. thats why they got rid of the wargear sections in the codexes you can only take whats listed for the character.

Viperion wrote:PLEASE NOTE: They did not say:

Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, or both provided you pay the stated cost

This CLEARLY indicates that you can pay the listed cost to have an additional weapon. I can pay +x points to have a Storm Bolter in addition to my bolt pistol and chainsword. Since I still have my bolter and chainsword, I can now pay x points to also have a Storm Shield.

This doesn't work in the cases where you "exchange x for..." as you no longer have item "x" to exchange after you've done it once. However in this case, and because they have clearly allowed it (hence the "neither" clause which they could have left out), you can simply buy More Stuff(tm)

(Insert snide comment about english comprehension here. I don't have the time to get personal)

Viperion

That's because if they had used that theoretical quote it only provides options for replacing either one or the other, or both, and people would be up in arms about how the RAW says that you have to replace atleast one of your weapons from that list.

Like allmost everyone else in this thread is saying, you are failing to read this phrase properly and interpreting things that aren't there.

Ghaz wrote:And yet again, the word 'neither' does not mean 'add'. Yet you seem to think it does. All the word 'neither' does in this passage is make it where you're not required to 'exchange' a weapon. It does not mean that you can add a weapon. You're so fixated on the word 'neither' that you're ignoring the rest of the sentence. You can choose to 'exchange' neither weapon, but it does not give you permission to add one.

If you don't give up a weapon, you have NOT made an exchange.

SO WHY DID THEY SAY "EITHER, NEITHER, OR BOTH" AND NOT JUST "EITHER OR BOTH"?

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that they included the word "neither" so that you could choose NOT to exchange your weapons, BUT STILL PAY THE COST, to NOT get a weapon? The mind boggles.

TELL ME THIS:
Why does that sentence, in it's entirety, NOT SAY:

Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either or both provided you pay the stated points cost.

Because it DOESN'T say that!

The way you are reading it, the sentence reads as follows:

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. If you choose to exchange neither, you don't receive the extra weapon as you haven't exchanged anything.

Yes, you are correct that you're not exchanging anything if you don't lose anything. But I ask you again - WHY is the word neither in there at all, when the sentence makes perfect sense without it? They needed to up their word count?

Besides, if you want to get really pedantic about it, the actual Captain entry doesn't use the word "exchange" it uses the word "replace" so that makes the whole section irrelevant, right?

Viperion

Ghaz wrote:You can choose to 'exchange' neither weapon, but it does not give you permission to add one.

Just thought I'd single this one out:

So if you do exchange neither weapon, and therefore have not added one, what is the point of the sentence?

"You may keep your weapons and not take any of these, provided you pay the points cost"

I'm sorry, what?

Blast away, I'm done.

Viperion

FFS

This is not a hard thing to comprehend.

"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 cost."

The word 'neither' is included to ensure that no-one gets confused and thinks you HAVE to replace one or both weapons with an option from the list. It is simply a clarifying statement that the poor editor at GW is probably now wishing he'd never included.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:"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 cost."

The word 'neither' is included to ensure that no-one gets confused and thinks you HAVE to replace one or both weapons with an option from the list. It is simply a clarifying statement that the poor editor at GW is probably now wishing he'd never included.

So you're saying you DON'T have to replace one or both weapons?

Isn't that what I'm saying?

FFS yourself.

Viperion

Viperion wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:"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 cost."

The word 'neither' is included to ensure that no-one gets confused and thinks you HAVE to replace one or both weapons with an option from the list. It is simply a clarifying statement that the poor editor at GW is probably now wishing he'd never included.

So you're saying you DON'T have to replace one or both weapons?

Isn't that what I'm saying?

FFS yourself.

Viperion

"Hello waiter, I would like to order the steak and vegetables, but could I please have the vegetables replaced with the chips which are of the same value and are therefore considered a free replacement", suddenly I'm getting a bigger meal at no charge.

Surely my dreadnoughts can "replace" their multi meltas with heavy flamers too, so I can have a dread with multi melta, heavy flamer, dreadnought CCW, and a storm bolter.

Not to mention how eagerly I await Ironclad dreadnoughts that replace their CCW with a hurricane bolter and their seismic hammer with a chainfist which results in them having 3 close combat weapons, a hurrican bolter, storm bolter, and meltagun.

But hang on, that doesn't sound right does it, and I'll tell you why, replace has it's own meaning that you are arbitrarily ignoring, replace means, Lose X, Get Y, the ONLY reason that the option to "replace neither" is included is for people who want to keep the default weaponry and not pay for any of those upgrades.

Drunkspleen wrote:
But hang on, that doesn't sound right does it, and I'll tell you why, replace has it's own meaning that you are arbitrarily ignoring, replace means, Lose X, Get Y, the ONLY reason that the option to "replace neither" is included is for people who want to keep the default weaponry and not pay for any of those upgrades.

Ok... the endless screaming of those who hate has managed to convince me of my folly in trying to add a second layer of to the endless search for more pseudo fair that is fething Workshop. The whole replacing neither, is stupid because there is a big... GIANT... MAY RIGHT THERE!!!!

you may choose to replace the weapons, or you can choose to be a stupid tart and shove a giant spank up the suit of your main hero, and if its all the same to you, please don't try that at tourneys, no one wants to see that in public.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:FFS

This is not a hard thing to comprehend.

"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 cost."

The word 'neither' is included to ensure that no-one gets confused and thinks you HAVE to replace one or both weapons with an option from the list. It is simply a clarifying statement that the poor editor at GW is probably now wishing he'd never included.

Wouldn't the term 'may' that was used twice in that sentence have that covered?

Viperion wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:"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 cost."

The word 'neither' is included to ensure that no-one gets confused and thinks you HAVE to replace one or both weapons with an option from the list. It is simply a clarifying statement that the poor editor at GW is probably now wishing he'd never included.

So you're saying you DON'T have to replace one or both weapons?

Isn't that what I'm saying?

FFS yourself.

Viperion

That does not seem to be what you are saying because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that by choosing the option "I replace none of my weapons with X" you pay any points and get any additional weapons. You get as many as you pay for and each one replaces a weapon. Replacing nothing costs nothing and gets you nothing.

No, in the unit entry for a model with two weapons the text says you:

"...may replace 'x' and/or 'y' for the following points cost..."

The sentence given on page 128:

"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 cost."

is a clarifying statement to avoid players thinking that they must replace something.

i.e. the unit entry could lead people to believe they have 3 options
Replace 'x'
Replace 'y'
Replace both

whereas the qualifying statement was put in to make it unambiguous that you also have the option
Replace nothing and keep the default equipment.


Its clear from this discussion that this obviously didn't work.

Plus they put this in for the simple fact that to get an extra attack with fists or thunderhammers you need to replace both the bolt pistol AND chainsword with a thunderhammer or fist provided you pay the cost. Otherwise they would not have stated this in the BBB itself. I can't reference the page number because I'm not near my rule book at the moment.

This is time for an English writing lesson.

The beginning of the sentence states an option example "may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another" as how it may appear in a unit entry. So, has no bearing on interpreting the second part of the sentence.

The second part of the sentence uses commas as in listing options or items in a series. So, if GW used they're grammar correctly, we should be able to use each item by itself in the sentence and each one make sense.

So, "you may replace either provided you pay the stated cost"

"you may replace both provided you pay the stated cost"

and the one everyone is hung-up on:

"you may replace neither provided you pay the stated cost"

All three should be usable together or separate.

I hope this helps the argument, I hope I just didn't make this worse...

That's the crux of the problem though, isn't it? If certain people can't read a book written at a sixth-grade level, then can one explain to them in a written medium that their literacy skills are weak?

How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? Here it is again:

YOU ONLY GET A NEW WEAPON IN EXCHANGE FOR AN EXISTING WEAPON.

If you choose to exchange neither weapon, then you do not get to add weapons. As has been pointed out many, many times all the use of the word 'neither' does is indicate that it is not mandatory to exchange weapons. It does not override the fact that you must make an exchange to get a new weapon.

all you can do is exchange it for like 2 thunder hammers
or thunder hammer and storm shield

Viperion wrote:

Someone tell me how this doesn't happen?

Viperion

This has been done several times. As Ghaz has pointed out, the rules states you may exchange not add wargear.

Aduro wrote:What do you mean we Now need to do that? Haven't we always done that?

Point taken.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:No, in the unit entry for a model with two weapons the text says you:

"...may replace 'x' and/or 'y' for the following points cost..."

The sentence given on page 128:

"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 cost."

is a clarifying statement to avoid players thinking that they must replace something.

i.e. the unit entry could lead people to believe they have 3 options
Replace 'x'
Replace 'y'
Replace both

whereas the qualifying statement was put in to make it unambiguous that you also have the option
Replace nothing and keep the default equipment.


Its clear from this discussion that this obviously didn't work.

This is patently untrue. This particular wording is only used in the "and/or" case; they don't say "In cases where you can upgrade a weapon, you may exchange it or not, provided you pay the points cost". There are four instances of the word "may" in that whole paragraph - doesn't that ALONE tell you that you can keep the default equipment?

Viperion

Viperion wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:No, in the unit entry for a model with two weapons the text says you:

"...may replace 'x' and/or 'y' for the following points cost..."

The sentence given on page 128:

"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 cost."

is a clarifying statement to avoid players thinking that they must replace something.

i.e. the unit entry could lead people to believe they have 3 options
Replace 'x'
Replace 'y'
Replace both

whereas the qualifying statement was put in to make it unambiguous that you also have the option
Replace nothing and keep the default equipment.


Its clear from this discussion that this obviously didn't work.

This is patently untrue. This particular wording is only used in the "and/or" case; they don't say "In cases where you can upgrade a weapon, you may exchange it or not, provided you pay the points cost". There are four instances of the word "may" in that whole paragraph - doesn't that ALONE tell you that you can keep the default equipment?

Viperion

Viperion wrote:There are four instances of the word "may" in that whole paragraph - doesn't that ALONE tell you that you can keep the default equipment?

However that does NOT allow you to take the equipment that it would have been exchanged for.

That is no longer what I am talking about. Chimera Calvin is saying that the word "neither" is in there to say that you may keep your default equipment. I am asking him if he he thinks that GW actually thinks anyone would think they MUST take one of the upgrade weapons, making his version of that sentence necessary.

THIS IS MY LAST POST ON THE TOPIC. Anyone who wants to get a last word in, feel free.

I have only this to ask. If the sentence in question, it it's entirety (you CANNOT take part of a sentence and read it as the whole thing!) read as such:

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

Then how on earth does this mean

"You may keep your default weapons".

It's the "...provided you pay the stated cost" (which people are conveniently ignoring) which is the clincher.

And Aduro, did you really have to quote two full posts just to post an emoticon? Really?

Viperion

Yes the word neither is there for one reason only. That is to indicate that you are not required to exchange a weapon. Your 'clincher' proves nothing, because without it you'd have people claiming they could exchange weapons for free. Once again, you can't make an exchange if you're not giving something up. Why can't you see that? Adding a weapon is NOT exchanging weapons.

why ask the community to explain something to you, if you have already made your mind up and dont actually want to hear what we have to say?

you are trying to find a loophole that doesnt exist, and are using flawed logic and poor grammar to justify it.

I'm pretty sold that this loophole doesn't exist, and it's just bad wording.

Now, you want a loophole? Find a copy of the old chaos codex and tell me what happens to each of your characters if, in the first assault phase, for the rest of the game, if each one of them takes a single combat drug.