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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's impossible to give wolf guard two Plasma Pistols as you options are

Replace both weapons (bp/ccw) with a single plasma pistol

Or

Replace either your ccw or bp with a plasma pistol

With the second option you can use gun slinger to shoot two weapons (bp/pp) but I don't understand the relevance of the first part (replace both with a combi weapon perhaps, but then you couldn't even fire a bp before assaulting...)

Unless you can do 'two transactions' I.e replace ccw with pp, then replace bp with pp?

Any insight Dakka?

D

Go back two-three pages where the codex explains what everything is on the datasheet. Re-read number 11 "Options".

It's written poorly. #11 under options tells you that you can make two transactions even though the and/or statement grammatically works the way you you think it does.

Nope, grammatically it gives you swap:

Bolt pistol for ... AND

Close combat weapon for ...

Two swaps.

Nos,
The grammar is an issue, if it wasn't for the Army List Explained section there would be nothing even suggesting that two swaps are even possible. Putting aside that section and how poorly it is actually written, and focusing just on the sentence structure as it is grammar is being debated and not what the intention of the Rule is, we do have a problem. Given that and/or within a sentence requires us to expand it into two sentences, one using the word prior to the / and one using the word after /, we would be required to read the sentence as either 'X and Y = 1Z' or as ' X or Y = 1Z.'

There is no way to come to the conclusion that the sentence has permission to read 'X and Y = 2Z.'

Thanks for pointing out the explanation on p46.

I had totally missed that bullet point #11.

Thanks again

D

Jinx - it doesn't =2z, except by degenerating down.

You get one swap

And

One more swap.

Using just the formatting of the sentence put forth in the war-list section, and not point 11 which explains what that format means for the Rules, please answer me the following:
How are you getting two swaps for two weapons?

He can swap X for one and he can swap Y for one. It doesn't require that you swap both X and Y for one.

Where is permission to swap X for one and Y for one coming from, English wise?

It is a serious question, I have always looked at and/or as more logic puzzles and I am starting to wonder if there is a completely different method of looking at this terminology now. It is my interpretation that the sentence has two inputs. The two inputs have permission to be combined into two functions that, in better written Rules, would allow for flexibility in how the Rule is Evoked. In this case, it goes on to explain the output gained by evoking this Rule, and for some bizarre reason only one output has been provided!

This is what makes it impossible to generate the 2Z outcome, because the only outcome available is Z and evoking the Rule in either format brings about the result of Z.

Analogue thinking can easily get around the problem quite easily, which is why it is never going to be an issue out of Rule Lawyer debates like this one. It is clear the authors intended for there to be multiple outputs because the Rule has only two inputs and two functions. A single output will always lead to a single function being more beneficial then another and in the worse case situation, this one in fact, that single beneficial output might be the only rational choice to take. Doubtful that the author intended for us to throw away X with no benifit gained, so we come to the conclusion there has to be a benifit for doing so. As one function costs more then another, it was obvious which would give a greater benefit, and as option 11 mentions paying for both we are able to conclude what that greater benefit would be 'two' something.

All together this brings us to the conclusion that we can have 2Z, but the formatting of the sentence still has only one output so logically there can only be one output....

It's English because X and Y are two separate items. You're trying to make them a single item.

It says you can exchange X and/or Y for one.

You're trying to read it as you can exchange either X or Y or both for one.

Agreed that I do not understand and you have failed to make it more clear.

I already mentioned they are two inputs, two separate Items with the name X and y for ease, so I don't see where stating that they are two items is relevant to the comprehension of this particular sentence. The issue clearly lies within the terminology of or/and itself, as I do not see how you come to the conclusion that 'and' means something other then 'X and Y' in the formula the Rule requires us to use to validate if we have made a legal selection of Z. Even taking a more relaxed mentality on the problem has not resolved it, not with a Rule stating that the end result to be 2Z. Even if I accept that the equation has some sort of self-containing 'may evoke twice' clause, which is the closest explanation to what I believe you are trying to state, there is always 2Z at the end with a Rule that states "one Z." If it was to allow one additional Z, then it would still need to have wording stating that X and Y allow for an additional Z outcome.

After-all:
If I swap X for one Z and Y for a different Z, I have successfully swapped X and Y but do I have only one Z afterwards?
Which I keep seeing as the same logic put against people whom want to swap one Weapon for one Relic....

By only allowing one of the options from the list, you're changing an "and/or" situation into an "either/or" situation. You saying that a model can only make one exchange and replace either X, or Y or both for a single choice.

By the use of "and" you can make multiple exchanges for multiple choices. You can exchange X for one choice and Y for one choice. You're not forced to exchange both X and Y for the same choice.

You're still trying to make X and Y into one item and thus trying to change it into an "either/or" situation. That is not what the rules say.

Stating that my interpretation is an either / or scenario does not seem accurate....
An either / or scenario requires there to only ever be two possible choices and is used to highlight when the choices will lead to specific outcomes. As I have three completely separate equation when all the factors are involved, X for Z. Y for Z. X and Y for Z, it doesn't meet any sort of definition for either/or that I can find in a quick ten minute read through on Google. This, coupled with the ability to simply not Evoke the Rule at all, would leave us with a fourth possibility and show that it is far from an either/or scenario.

Even if the equation was formatted to make the and/or scenario identical to the either/or scenario, why would that prevent the 1Z outcome from being correct?
Even if the equation was formatted to make the and/or scenario identical to the either/or scenario, why would that suddenly prove the interpretation 'swap X and Y for 2Z' as correct?

Grammatically it makes no sense either as that would leave one of the options reading 'May swap X either Y for 1Z'
That sentence really should read: May Swap X or Y for one Z, alternatively may swap X and Y for two Z.

 Ghaz wrote:
It's English because X and Y are two separate items. You're trying to make them a single item.

It says you can exchange X and/or Y for one.

You're trying to read it as you can exchange either X or Y or both for one.

"X and/or Y" DOES most commonly mean "Either X or Y or Both X and Y". The comment under point 11 is required because as written, and using the most commonly accepted English meaning, X and/or Y doesn't allow for two exchanges. Point 11 is essentially creating a new meaning for and/or.

I will certainly allow that RaW allows for two exchanges specifically because of the wording under point 11. The and/or wording isn't enough.