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 view it as:

One for one

Not one for two

But if you have two then each one can be swapped for one.

Make sense?

Fireraven wrote:
Then it could easily say Items from list a, b, c and one relic which it does not say.

It could... but it doesn't need to, because it restricts you to one in the Relics list anyway.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fireraven wrote:
I have never seen someone other then on these furoms argue..

For what it's worth, I've seen it debated on the one other forum I frequent these days, and it's been ruled as only one allowed in various large tournaments around and about.

Is the armor, helm or wolven stone a weapon? No, they are not. It does say one weapon not one relic. Unless the armor list that is in a total diffrent section of the codex instantly become a defaco weapon please let me know. Becauae ill happly write in crayon my new wolf lord armor now is a weapon that adds 99 str and Toughness as well as 99 attacks. Since its now a weapon it needs values as well for those stats o ya all my attacks are ap1just in case my rolls are bad.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The codex literally tells me in the Wolf Lord entry that I can take items from the Relics list. How is that not permission to take multiple items?

No, it doesn't. It gives you permission to select items from a bunch of different lists, including the Relics list.

That doesn't inherently over-ride any restriction specific to any of those lists.

I feel like you're using the true Scotsman logical fallacy here, i.e., sure it says items, but that's not a true plural because there are other lists involved. As per the tenets of this forum, the True Scotsman fallacy is not a valid debate technique.

I am following the list specific restrictions each time I select from the list. If I choose to take three items from the Relics list, I should be able to so long as I obey the requirement to replace one weapon each time.

 Kriswall wrote:
I feel like you're using the true Scotsman logical fallacy here, i.e., sure it says items, but that's not a true plural because there are other lists involved.

I'm not saying it's not a 'true' plural. I'm saying that while it gives you permission to select more than one item from those lists, giving you permission to select multiple items from multiple lists does not alow you to ignore a restriction placed on any one of those lists that limits what can be selected from that specific list.

I am following the list specific restrictions each time I select from the list.

No, you're not. Because the list allows you to replace one item for something else. The moment you swap a second item, you have broken the rule that says you can swap one.

Meh. You see it your way, I'll see it mine. We're told we can take items and we're told that taking an item involves replacing one weapon for one Relic. You see one weapon as an absolute limiter. I see it as a per take limiter. Both are potentially correct. We aren't given enough information to confirm one interpretation.

We're never going to agree, but that's ok. In a tournament setting, I would abide by the TO's ruling, which is just a tourney HIWPI. In a casual setting, I wouldn't care, and neither would anyone I regularly play with. If my group wanted well written and unambiguous rules, we'd just play Magic the Gathering.

We're never going to agree, but that's ok. In a tournament setting, I would abide by the TO's ruling, which is just a tourney HIWPI. In a casual setting, I wouldn't care, and neither would anyone I regularly play with. If my group wanted well written and unambiguous rules, we'd just play Magic the Gathering.

In a tournament setting, you would have no choice but to abide by the TO's ruling, so that should go without saying. As for me, I agree with the OP. I don't believe "one" and "any" are synonyms.

I am just as firm with myself when creating my own armies. I've spent more hours than a sane man should rewriting my own lists to make sure not to exceed the agreed upon point limit, only to find that my opponent casually just went a few points over. I KNOW it's not that big of a deal. However I lose my sanity when people refuse to afford me the same amount of consideration as I give to them.

RaW: "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
You only have permission to swap 1 item by this rule.
Then read Note 6.

Old Thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/609767.page

My Conclusions:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
Single model, single "one weapon with one": can't take The Bite with Black Death

Note 6: "Does not replace one of the character's weapons" - ie disregard the second line.
Black Death + Wulfen stone + Helm is perfectly legal as you only have One per army and that is the single requirement.

 BlackTalos wrote:
RaW: "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
You only have permission to swap 1 item by this rule.
Then read Note 6.

Old Thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/609767.page

My Conclusions:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Indeed, "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
Single model, single "one weapon with one": can't take The Bite with Black Death

Note 6: "Does not replace one of the character's weapons" - ie disregard the second line.
Black Death + Wulfen stone + Helm is perfectly legal as you only have One per army and that is the single requirement.

This cracks me up.

>Implying your opinion was final and correct in the previous threads.

The previous threads on the subject were locked because no consensus was reached and people were getting snarky about other forum members' grasp of the English language. That's already starting in this thread. Several people have challenged my grasp of basic English grammar when we all know GW writes ambiguous and poorly thought out rules. I simply don't agree with your reading anymore than you agree with mine. Both are potentially valid depending on what GW was intending.

This is definitely one of those topics where you should just come to an agreement within your local gaming group. If the Rules as Written were clear, we wouldn't be into the umpteenth thread on the subject.

MODS, can we lock this thread since it's obviously not going to come to a resolution?

 Kriswall wrote:
>Implying your opinion was final and correct in the previous threads.

Never did assume that a final say was the correct answer... I have posted in many "Loop" Threads before.

Instead, rather than spend time re-iterating my position, the Rules did not change since my last conclusion and it is therefore still applicable.
And IMHO correct, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll put it in RaW full format if it helps:

May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists.

Where the and/or constructs phrases so:
May take items from the Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons and Special Issue Wargear and Relics of the Fang lists.
May take items from the Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons or Special Issue Wargear or Relics of the Fang lists.

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

So, when a model decides to take items from this list, he has to follow this rule. A model > One weapon > one of the following.
Nothing allows you to run through this rule again, as you are assuming. A model (singular) can do 1 thing. Selecting the same model again is still the "A model", and you've done so already.

Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" no longer applies if you also follow Note 6.

A model with A) The Bite of Fenris, Black Death and Fangsword of the Ice Wolf is breaking RaW
A model with B) The Bite of Fenris, Helm of Durfast and The Wulfen Stone is fully legal by RaW.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
>Implying your opinion was final and correct in the previous threads.

Never did assume that a final say was the correct answer... I have posted in many "Loop" Threads before.

Instead, rather than spend time re-iterating my position, the Rules did not change since my last conclusion and it is therefore still applicable.
And IMHO correct, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll put it in RaW full format if it helps:

May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists.

Where the and/or constructs phrases so:
May take items from the Melee Weapons and Ranged Weapons and Special Issue Wargear and Relics of the Fang lists.
May take items from the Melee Weapons or Ranged Weapons or Special Issue Wargear or Relics of the Fang lists.

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

So, when a model decides to take items from this list, he has to follow this rule. A model > One weapon > one of the following.
Nothing allows you to run through this rule again, as you are assuming. A model (singular) can do 1 thing. Selecting the same model again is still the "A model", and you've done so already.

Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" no longer applies if you also follow Note 6.

A model with A) The Bite of Fenris, Black Death and Fangsword of the Ice Wolf is breaking RaW
A model with B) The Bite of Fenris, Helm of Durfast and The Wulfen Stone is fully legal by RaW.

So how are you taking 3 items if you can't go through the sequence again? How does A model > One weapon > one of the following equal out to a model switching one weapon for 3 relics? By your interpretation of RaW at best you would switch one of your weapons for one of the relics that don't replace a weapon, and then have that one and the weapon you put up for swapping. Or you go against clear RaW by swapping one weapon for 3 relics. Or we are able to go through the process multiple times as long as we follow the one weapon for one relic rule.

I'm also curious to know this. You say nothing allows you to run through this rule again, yet you clearly say I can run through it at least three times.

Which is it? Can I choose from the list multiple times, or can't I?

It's either a model being able to exchange one weapon for one of the following multiple times or a model being able to exchange [one weapon or nothing depending on the relic] for one of the following once. You can't have it both ways. You can't say multiple choices are allowed, but multiple choices aren't allowed in the same post.

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

The underlined is incorrect. If you have 2 relics, and you traded 2 weapons for them, you're by definition arguing that you can trade 2 weapons for 2 relics.
The bolded is incorrect - you're told you can have items from multiple lists. There is no rule that says you may have items from the Relic list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar.

Yes, you are.

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Except you're never given permission to select more than one item from the Relics list.

You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option.

Using Codex: SM (since I don't have the SW book) I select a Bike for my chapter master. I then select Terminator armor. According to your argument this is legal - I'm restricted from choosing a bike if I have Terminator armor, but not the other way around.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

The underlined is incorrect. If you have 2 relics, and you traded 2 weapons for them, you're by definition arguing that you can trade 2 weapons for 2 relics.
The bolded is incorrect - you're told you can have items from multiple lists. There is no rule that says you may have items from the Relic list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar.

Yes, you are.

'Can take items from the A, B, C and/or D lists' can be rewritten as the following 15 sentences using the most commonly accepted meaning of and/or, which is "one, the other, or both".

Can take items from the A list.
Can take items from the B list.
Can take items from the C list.
Can take items from the D list.
Can take items from the A and B lists.
Can take items from the A and C lists.
Can take items from the A and D lists.
Can take items from the B and C lists.
Can take items from the B and D lists.
Can take items from the C and D lists.
Can take items from the A and B and C lists.
Can take items from the A and B and D lists.
Can take items from the A and C and D lists.
Can take items from the B and C and D lists.
Can take items from the A and B and C and D lists.

I am effectively being told that I can take items from the D, or "Relics of the Fang" list. This is a plural, not singular permission. You can argue that RAI is that it be singular, but the actual sentence uses the plural term 'items'.

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Except you're never given permission to select more than one item from the Relics list.

See above.

You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option.

Using Codex: SM (since I don't have the SW book) I select a Bike for my chapter master. I then select Terminator armor. According to your argument this is legal - I'm restricted from choosing a bike if I have Terminator armor, but not the other way around.

I'd have to go back and look at that codex. RAI is pretty obvious, but if there is no restriction for Terminator armoured models to take Bikes (or Jump Packs), then I would argue that it's possible by RAW. I doubt any gaming group would play it that way, but RAW would support it. In much the same way, Independent Characters can't join Monstrous Creatures. But, a Monstrous Creature Independent Character (such as O'vesa) can join other non-MC ICs. The RAI seems to indicate that MCs and ICs can't pal around. The actual RAW allows it to happen so long as the MC is joining the IC and not the other way around.

 Kriswall wrote:
'Can take items from the A, B, C and/or D lists' can be rewritten as the following 15 sentences using the most commonly accepted meaning of and/or, which is "one, the other, or both".

No, it cannot. Your statement means that to take anything, you MUST take multiple from any list you look at. This is demonstrably false.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
'Can take items from the A, B, C and/or D lists' can be rewritten as the following 15 sentences using the most commonly accepted meaning of and/or, which is "one, the other, or both".

No, it cannot. Your statement means that to take anything, you MUST take multiple from any list you look at. This is demonstrably false.

Incorrect.

0 is a number of items.
1 is a number of items.
2 is a number of items.

If I can take items, I can take 0, 1, 2 or more.

How many items would you like to take? Zero. Excellent. Here are your zero items!
How many items would you like to take? One. Excellent. Here is your one item!
How many items would you like to take? ALL OF THE THINGS! Um, you have to give me a number. Then... three? Ok, here are your three items!

 Kriswall wrote:
How many items would you like to take? One. Excellent. Here is your one item!

If you take one item, have you taken plural items from the list?

Also, that's what 'and/or' means. What do you think and/or means? How would you break that sentence into multiple sentences (or one longer sentence)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
How many items would you like to take? One. Excellent. Here is your one item!

If you take one item, have you taken plural items from the list?

Your question isn't relevant. I think you're asking if I've taken 2 or more items. The answer is a resounding no. If you're asking if I've taken items from the list, the answer is a resounding yes.

Being told that I can take items gives me permission to take 0, 1 or more. Taking 1 fulfills my permission, just as taking 0 or 2 would. If it said "you can take two or more items" then I would agree that one isn't an acceptable choice, but there is no such specification.

There is permission to take one relic, some of the relics require you swap a weapon.

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:
So how are you taking 3 items if you can't go through the sequence again? How does A model > One weapon > one of the following equal out to a model switching one weapon for 3 relics? By your interpretation of RaW at best you would switch one of your weapons for one of the relics that don't replace a weapon, and then have that one and the weapon you put up for swapping. Or you go against clear RaW by swapping one weapon for 3 relics. Or we are able to go through the process multiple times as long as we follow the one weapon for one relic rule.

You never swap one weapon for 3 Relics. You can swap 1 weapon for 1 Relic. You can have some Relics

How do you take a Helm of Durfast on a Space Wolves HQ?
Do you swap out one weapon?
Just the Helm, on its own.

blaktoof wrote:
There is permission to take one relic, some of the relics require you swap a weapon.

The permission in the unit entry actually says items. Show me where in the Unit Entry it says that I may only select once from the Relics list.

When I go to take my items form the Relics list, I am told that I can replace one weapon for one of the items on the list. I already know from the unit entry that I can take potentially multiple items from the list (or zero, or one). So, I know that I can take more than one and I know how taking one occurs.

It seems to me that you are using the wording in the Relics list to override and contradict the wording in the actual unit entry. I'm using the wording in the unit entry to let me know how many I can take and the wording in the Relics list to let me know how to take them.

The unit entry is plural because it specifies multiple lists the model can choose from, the specific entry for the relics is singular.

not sure how you can ignore the specific lists restrictions because the unit entry lists multiple lists you can pick from.

that would be similiar to ignore the footnotes from the lists as they are not in the unit entry, or ignoring the points cost as they are not in the unit, entry, etc.

 Kriswall wrote:
Space Marine Bikers come with a Bolt Pistol, but no melee weapon. Per the FAQ an option was added to allow them to swap their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword. Two Bikers may then exchange the melee weapon (Chainsword) for a Special Weapon. The option selection HAS to be sequential, or no biker would be able to take a Special Weapon.

There you go. There is an example of sequential logic in taking options in a unit entry.

Sequential is not iterative. As a programmer you should know that. My point stands.

DoW


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

The permission in the unit entry actually says items. Show me where in the Unit Entry it says that I may only select once from the Relics list.

The part where it says RaW: "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

One means one. You do not have permission to select more than once from the Relics list. If you are iterating the list more than once, then I am also able to take Infinite Astropaths in my AM Command Squad.

The section in the Unit entry indicates you can select from the multiple items in the Relic list, not multiple items.

Am I going crazy? I hate to say it, but this is very straightforward grammar and syntax. In all seriousness, is this a quirk with American English?

DoW

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
There is permission to take one relic, some of the relics require you swap a weapon.

The permission in the unit entry actually says items. Show me where in the Unit Entry it says that I may only select once from the Relics list.

When I go to take my items form the Relics list, I am told that I can replace one weapon for one of the items on the list. I already know from the unit entry that I can take potentially multiple items from the list (or zero, or one). So, I know that I can take more than one and I know how taking one occurs.

It seems to me that you are using the wording in the Relics list to override and contradict the wording in the actual unit entry. I'm using the wording in the unit entry to let me know how many I can take and the wording in the Relics list to let me know how to take them.

Ok, so you are in the Unit Entry, and you decide to select: "The Bite of Fenris, Black Death and Fangsword of the Ice Wolf" or you may decide to select "The Bite of Fenris, Helm of Durfast and The Wulfen Stone"

When you go to take the Items from the Relics list:

The Bite of Fenris
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

Black Death
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

Fangsword of the Ice Wolf
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

or

The Bite of Fenris
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

Helm of Durfast
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following: Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

The Wulfen Stone
Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following: Note 6: Does not replace one of the character's weapons.

You will notice that doing the first 3, you perform "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" 3 times. Are they 3 different models? As they are not, the Red section cannot be repeated, it is the same model.

If you select the second set of Wargear, how many items have you swapped on the same model?

I don't think this is a grammar issue at all.

The unit entry says I can take items.

The list tells me how to take an item.

If I can take items, I'm clearly selecting from the list multiple times.

Honestly, this feels exactly like trying to explain process flow design to non logical thinkers. I don't think this is a grammar or syntax issue. I think this has more to with the way different people approach and interpret logical processes. I may be overly technical in my approach, but I feel like some people are ignoring the technical elements of the process and going with what they see as 'obviously true'.

The real question is this... does the wording on the Relics list tell me how to take an item from the list, or does it tell me how many items I can take? I think it tells me how to take an item (one for one). I think the unit entry tells me how many I can take... items, i.e., 0+.

 Kriswall wrote:
Honestly, this feels exactly like trying to explain process flow design to non logical thinkers. I don't think this is a grammar or syntax issue. I think this has more to with the way different people approach and interpret logical processes. I may be overly technical in my approach, but I feel like some people are ignoring the technical elements of the process and going with what they see as 'obviously true'.

Then we are in the same boat. It's equally shocking that my explanation of what the sentence says is being lost on several of the people in this thread. I can assure you that the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" does not allow for more than one weapon to be exchanged at all. It's really not a discussion. I'm actually quite surprised that this threat has gone along for as long as it has because I really only encounter these sorts of issues when I'm dealing with much younger players, or those who have English as second language (which are both completely valid reasons for confusion).

The only argument that has any merit at all is the claim that the procedure can be iterated several times to get the result you want. However, that's not how the rules work. This is evident as there are many Unit Entries that, if iteration was allowed, would give the option for a 10 man squad of meltaguns or infinite added models.

As I said before, these rules are written using the basic rules of English syntax and grammar. If someone tried to argue that they could take both items in a rule that said "take one OR the other" because 'OR' isn't the same as 'XOR' (in binary logic) you would say that they were misunderstanding the rule. At least I hope you would.

I completely understand your frustration at not being able to convince people of your position but, rest assured, we are feeling the exact same frustration towards you.

DoW

You have two permissions. You have to satisfy both at the same time

One States you can select items. The othe states for THIs list you may take one item for one weapon.

If you tak two, you cannot demonstrate compliance either the permission to take one. It is impossible to do so

 Kriswall wrote:
The real question is this... does the wording on the Relics list tell me how to take an item from the list, or does it tell me how many items I can take? I think it tells me how to take an item (one for one). I think the unit entry tells me how many I can take... items, i.e., 0+.

It's both. It's a directive - you have to follow it. If you have 2 relics you've traded two weapons for 2 relics. Please demonstrate how that does not violate one for one.

One for one followed by one for one isn't the same as two for two. It's one for one twice. The list only allows me to do a one for one action. The unit entry lets me take multiple actions as relates to the list. I'm never doing a two for two action. I'm doing a one for one... two times.

To be clear... I am not ever exchanging two weapons for two relics. I'm exchanging one weapon for one relic. I am simply doing this more than once. My stance remains that the explicit permission to do this more than once lies in the unit entry telling me I can take items. Each time I take an item, I obviously have to fulfill the requirement of one for one.

Again... at no point in the option selection process am I handing over two weapons, paying a single points cost and receiving two relics. This is never happening. Each time I select an option I am obeying the one for one. Each time I am handing over one weapon, paying a single points cost and receiving one relic.

Yes you are, you're just Easter egging by pretending to do it twice

One for one twice is equivalent to two for two, and is breaking a rule. Don't break rules